***OFFICIAL*** Obama's Healthcare summit discussion thread

[ebaycj]

This is a much more widespread practice than anyone is willing to admit. I worked for 20yrs in finance for a large pharma company and we had thousands of MD's on the payroll as consultants and speakers and managed their "engagements" strictly on how many scrips they generated for our products. We paid them insane fees for everything from writing a 1/2 page testimonial for a newsletter, to $50k for a 5min speach at a seminar that we sponsored, to flat out commision payments for the scrips they wrote.

...And we have arrived at a major reason healthcare costs so damn much: Insurance Fraud.

And instead of tracking, investigating, and rooting out this fraud (with law enforcement of course), insurance companies decided it was cheaper and easier to pass on the costs of this fraud to their customers (companies who pay for insurance for their employees).

 

[bfdd]

I wish this was going on at the state level and the federal level. I would love to have a more socialized medical industry... at the state level.

 

[Patranus]

I wish this was going on at the state level and the federal level. I would love to have a more socialized medical industry... at the state level.

And nothing is stopping your state from doing this or from you voting with your feet and moving to a state with more socialized medicine.

 

[ebaycj]

I wish this was going on at the state level and the federal level. I would love to have a more socialized medical industry... at the state level.

What if it was run at the state level, but was federally funded, ala medicaid?

 

[Patranus]

What if it was run at the state level, but was federally funded, ala medicaid?

There is simply no point to do that and no practical way to accomplish that.

Why would you want to fund something federally that is a state program. If a state wants a program the money should come from THEIR pocket.

 

[Jhhnn]

There is simply no point to do that and no practical way to accomplish that.

Why would you want to fund something federally that is a state program. If a state wants a program the money should come from THEIR pocket.

How lame. If funds collected from blue state taxes weren't redistributed to red states like Mississippi and Alaska, many red states would shrivel up and die...

The truth is that red states, in general, have a lot more to gain from healthcare reform than the rest of the country. Overall, red state healthcare is the country's worst, but don't let that interfere with your canned propagandizing...

 

[Ozoned]

The VAST majority of poor un-insured, and underinsured people live in bright blue cities. 1/3 of the countries entire population live in the countries 20 largest metropoitan areas. The ONLY 3 of them, that are red are in texas and arizona. Dallas/FortWorth, Houston, Phoenix.

The 2nd paragraph about the red state blah is pure opinion and nothing more.

The master that makes the decisions about your healthcare is the same master that will want your vote.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

...And we have arrived at a major reason healthcare costs so damn much: Insurance Fraud.

And instead of tracking, investigating, and rooting out this fraud (with law enforcement of course), insurance companies decided it was cheaper and easier to pass on the costs of this fraud to their customers (companies who pay for insurance for their employees).

Wait-- Drug companies pay physicians lots of money to speak, and the insurance companies are to blame. My driveway is really icy. Those damn insurance companies are responsible!!!

 

[Jhhnn]

The VAST majority of poor un-insured, and underinsured people live in bright blue cities. 1/3 of the countries entire population live in the countries 20 largest metropoitan areas. The ONLY 3 of them, that are red are in texas and arizona. Dallas/FortWorth, Houston, Phoenix.

The 2nd paragraph about the red state blah is pure opinion and nothing more.

The master that makes the decisions about your healthcare is the same master that will want your vote.

Sooo Lame... I wouldn't have made that claim w/o something to back it up, like this-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5/29/AR2009052901548.html?sid=ST2009052903062

Google "Red State Healthcare" for another 48M hits, most of which will tell you the same thing...

In case you haven't realized it, your usual diet of rightwing info-tainment isn't really news, at all...

And , for sure, part of the reticence about this reform is that some Blue State residents, like people in Massachusetts, are sick of paying for their Red State brethren's benefits... Hear that giant sucking sound? It's coming from south of the Mason-Dixon line, it's the sound of Red State Welfare sucking cash out of the North and East...

The only part of that I object to is that they're so pissy about it, so ignorant of the facts...

 

[her209]

The VAST majority of poor un-insured, and underinsured people live in bright blue cities. 1/3 of the countries entire population live in the countries 20 largest metropoitan areas. The ONLY 3 of them, that are red are in texas and arizona. Dallas/FortWorth, Houston, Phoenix.

Those two cities in Texas are probably in the Top 10, probably Top 5, for Fattest Cities in America.

 

[werepossum]

I'm willing to pay for insurance if it is possible for me to earn enough to pay for it. Unlike the feds, I can't simply print money (well, without getting in a lot of trouble). Basically I'm saying that if I can afford it (which means I don't need to take out debt to pay for it) then I will buy it. Even if it means I can't save a single penny, I want in.

I understand that I'll never put more into the system than I take out. I won't ever be profitable for an insurance company. I also know that it means someone else is picking up the buck somewhere. That said, it's not like I choose for it to happen. Hell, if I was a hardcore drinker or smoker then at least I could have something to blame it on. I never did those things (or any drugs), I just had epic-fail level bad luck.

I believe pretty strongly in the idea of social responsibility. I don't think its lip service, I genuinely believe in helping out your neighbor. I really believe that decisions should be made considering the implications for everyone. If I hadn't been sick, I still would have been okay with the idea of paying a little more to ensure that others were being taken care of. Read this. It's just how I am. I do not place the needs of the individual over the needs of the whole, though I understand and respect that many people do not see the world the way that I do.

Anyway it's been a long day and I'm out for the night. Try not to eviscerate me too badly while I'm asleep 🙂

You and I are in the same boat, pretty much. I too require regular and fairly expensive tests (PET scans and LOTS of blood work) as follow ups for cancer. You'd be surprised at how much insurance costs though even in a small business, as employers offering insurance almost always heavily (if not completely) subsidize it. We've had to go to health savings accounts (which I love) which means that I have $2,000 out of pocket, then 20% to 40% (depending on a variety of things) for covered expenses. This is becoming pretty typical if you're not part of a large company or government entity, and we've seen many large companies that have been bankrupted or driven offshore by health care costs.

One of two things has to happen: Either we have to learn to accept a much lower level of health care like other countries, or we have to learn to accept health care as a much larger portion of our expenses. Probably both have to happen. The biggest problem I see now is that the advocates of government-controlled health care are being patently dishonest by saying we can have even better health care for even more people at lower costs if we just put the government in charge. This is not borne out by government's control of the portion of health care it now controls or by our experience of government in general.

We're also going to have to get a handle on salaries for health care providers, but there again there are some severe consequences of that. Right now doctors and many kinds of nurses and specialists can make very high salaries. Consequently we get very good recruits to those professions and can keep standards high. As salaries decrease, so will the quality of students and graduates. As the USA is by far the fattest, most sedentary, and most violent of the developed nations, driving more miles and eating worse diets, our results are necessarily going to be worse than the others because we start with a lower baseline. That almost ensures we can look forward to more losses of freedom as government takes more control over our lives "for our own good." Looking at this, I would very much prefer to see fifty states tackling this problem rather than one central government. I think it offers the best chance to get the maximum benefit with the minimum pain. Personally I'm hoping we can re-couple health care costs with the consumer; having someone else pay always results in not caring about the costs.

And I won't eviscerate you, you're too good a guy. 🙂

 

[Carmen813]

You and I are in the same boat, pretty much. I too require regular and fairly expensive tests (PET scans and LOTS of blood work) as follow ups for cancer. You'd be surprised at how much insurance costs though even in a small business, as employers offering insurance almost always heavily (if not completely) subsidize it. We've had to go to health savings accounts (which I love) which means that I have $2,000 out of pocket, then 20% to 40% (depending on a variety of things) for covered expenses. This is becoming pretty typical if you're not part of a large company or government entity, and we've seen many large companies that have been bankrupted or driven offshore by health care costs.

One of two things has to happen: Either we have to learn to accept a much lower level of health care like other countries, or we have to learn to accept health care as a much larger portion of our expenses. Probably both have to happen. The biggest problem I see now is that the advocates of government-controlled health care are being patently dishonest by saying we can have even better health care for even more people at lower costs if we just put the government in charge. This is not borne out by government's control of the portion of health care it now controls or by our experience of government in general.

We're also going to have to get a handle on salaries for health care providers, but there again there are some severe consequences of that. Right now doctors and many kinds of nurses and specialists can make very high salaries. Consequently we get very good recruits to those professions and can keep standards high. As salaries decrease, so will the quality of students and graduates. As the USA is by far the fattest, most sedentary, and most violent of the developed nations, driving more miles and eating worse diets, our results are necessarily going to be worse than the others because we start with a lower baseline. That almost ensures we can look forward to more losses of freedom as government takes more control over our lives "for our own good." Looking at this, I would very much prefer to see fifty states tackling this problem rather than one central government. I think it offers the best chance to get the maximum benefit with the minimum pain. Personally I'm hoping we can re-couple health care costs with the consumer; having someone else pay always results in not caring about the costs.

And I won't eviscerate you, you're too good a guy. 🙂

Thanks for the civil reply. I apologize that my response is rather long.

HSAs work fairly well once you are firmly financially established. My wife and I currently make about $27,000 a year, and both of us are cancer survivors. Since she requires ongoing pain medication (to the tune of about $600 a month if we don't have insurance) our health costs are quite high. HSAs are rather poor options for the chronically ill, the out of pocket costs are simply too high. When I was getting 2-4 pet scans a year there was just no way I could afford that with an HSA.

I think part of what you said depends on what you mean by "accepting a lower level of care." Many other countries do pretty well in terms of overall quality and spend a lot less money doing it. They might not be better necessarily, but certainly comparable considering what they pay. If "accepting a lower level of care" means that we can't get unnecessary tests (which are primarily due to defensive medicine costs), than I am all for it. I agree that we need to re-couple health care costs with the individuals receiving the care.

Part of the reason doctors salaries need to be so high is the cost of education and malpractice insurance. This reform effort makes substantial steps at reducing the cost of education through loan elimination programs.

My dad ran a small business so I know how badly health care costs can hurt them. It's a major problem.

I think you made a good point about the U.S. starting at a lower baseline, obesity in particular simply must be addressed. It costs us hundreds of billions a year not only in health care costs, but lost productivity.

In political terms I end up being a liberal-libertarian, or a libertarian democrat. In general I agree that government can sometimes end up doing more harm than good, but I also think government can do "good." That said, I also think government has the responsibility to step in when private or non-profit industry fails.

That is my belief regarding the health care. We've got a major national problem, and I believe it needs a national solution. I think piecemeal solutions will simply drag out the process and we will end up doing more damage in the short-term without addressing the real long-term problems.

I don't really agree that it is the federal government taking over, because the private industry will still exist. Despite cries from the right, this bill isn't socialism. We won't have state owned hospitals, drug companies, or doctors/nurses won't becoming state employees. It's an attempt to fix a broken system. I think this legislation is flawed, but not utterly apocalyptic. I imagine there will be some rough patches that need to get fixed, but overall I think it will end up being a "good" direction for health care in the U.S. Then again, I'm not an expert, just a consumer 😛

I think Hayabusa makes very strong points regarding the fact that the fix should be designed by the people who have the most experience with its flaws. I'm just not sure there is a realistic way to accomplish that...which is why I've been prodding him for more information 🙂 I really want to know how he thinks reform should be done...as well as a description of how it could be implemented.

 

[werepossum]

Thanks for the civil reply. I apologize that my response is rather long.

HSAs work fairly well once you are firmly financially established. My wife and I currently make about $27,000 a year, and both of us are cancer survivors. Since she requires ongoing pain medication (to the tune of about $600 a month if we don't have insurance) our health costs are quite high. HSAs are rather poor options for the chronically ill, the out of pocket costs are simply too high. When I was getting 2-4 pet scans a year there was just no way I could afford that with an HSA.

I think part of what you said depends on what you mean by "accepting a lower level of care." Many other countries do pretty well in terms of overall quality and spend a lot less money doing it. They might not be better necessarily, but certainly comparable considering what they pay. If "accepting a lower level of care" means that we can't get unnecessary tests (which are primarily due to defensive medicine costs), than I am all for it. I agree that we need to re-couple health care costs with the individuals receiving the care.

Part of the reason doctors salaries need to be so high is the cost of education and malpractice insurance. This reform effort makes substantial steps at reducing the cost of education through loan elimination programs.

My dad ran a small business so I know how badly health care costs can hurt them. It's a major problem.

I think you made a good point about the U.S. starting at a lower baseline, obesity in particular simply must be addressed. It costs us hundreds of billions a year not only in health care costs, but lost productivity.

In political terms I end up being a liberal-libertarian, or a libertarian democrat. In general I agree that government can sometimes end up doing more harm than good, but I also think government can do "good." That said, I also think government has the responsibility to step in when private or non-profit industry fails.

That is my belief regarding the health care. We've got a major national problem, and I believe it needs a national solution. I think piecemeal solutions will simply drag out the process and we will end up doing more damage in the short-term without addressing the real long-term problems.

I don't really agree that it is the federal government taking over, because the private industry will still exist. Despite cries from the right, this bill isn't socialism. We won't have state owned hospitals, drug companies, or doctors/nurses won't becoming state employees. It's an attempt to fix a broken system. I think this legislation is flawed, but not utterly apocalyptic. I imagine there will be some rough patches that need to get fixed, but overall I think it will end up being a "good" direction for health care in the U.S. Then again, I'm not an expert, just a consumer 😛

I think Hayabusa makes very strong points regarding the fact that the fix should be designed by the people who have the most experience with its flaws. I'm just not sure there is a realistic way to accomplish that...which is why I've been prodding him for more information 🙂 I really want to know how he thinks reform should be done...as well as a description of how it could be implemented.

What I mean by a lower level of care is that in most countries neither you nor I would get nearly the same level of care - maybe PET scans once every two years, if we're lucky. Accepting that new and better machines will not be introduced nearly so quickly. Accepting that new drugs won't be developed at anything near the same rate (which could be a small loss, depending on how well we control costs, since much research is to duplicate existing drugs and provide competition.) Everyday care might be similar, but serious and catastrophic care will inevitably decline. For instance, when I got radiation I was in isolation for a week because I was radioactive. In Canada with the same treatment you get sent home with the advice not to be in close contact with anyone else, don't kiss, don't have sex, don't be in the same room with children or pregnant women. The Canadian system just doesn't have enough money to place someone in isolation for a week merely for being radioactive, so they have to take more risk. (My own idea, that I spend a week camping and trout fishing in the wilderness away from everyone and then burn the gear before I come home, sadly was also rejected.)

Another example - I was diagnosed with thyroid cancer after seeking treatment for an infected and ruptured lymph node. The tests I received here would have never been ordered in Canada; there's just not enough money and not enough of the very expensive diagnostic imaging equipment for routine "I think I know what it is but I'd still like to have a look inside" tests. I had eleven needle biopsies before a cancer cell was found, but my doctor persevered, saying that my thyroid looked cancerous on the scans. Had I been under the Canadian (or French, or heaven forbid the British) system of socialized medicine, there's a very good chance I would be dead or at least doomed by now, nine years later. Our plentiful but very expensive diagnostic imaging equipment, highly trained technicians, and experienced doctors and specialists are why we have such excellent survival rates despite our horrible diet and dangerous lifestyle.

I think this bill is pretty apocalyptic intentionally. Its backers are all advocates of a single-payer system that anyone would call socialism, and this bill is designed to either bring us closer to that end by incrementalism, or by breaking the existing system and thereby forcing single-payer system on us by default. My preference would be to have a well-televised and LONG debate in which providers at different levels (insurance, doctors, nurse, hospital administrators, drug companies) all have input and we could slowly but surely reach some national consensus. Build something from the ground up, with support building alongside it, rather than shaping a turd behind closed doors and then seeing if enough ornaments and pork will make it small like a rose. Unfortunately I have no faith in D.C.'s ability to do anything without politics being issue numero uno.

 

[Carmen813]

When I got radiation I got the same advice that you think the Canadians do 🙂 I received radiation from what of the best cancer centers in the country, Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, NY. In all honestly I doubt we were radioactive enough to really do any harm to most people (if we were, we'd be dead). Most people are probably exposed to more solar radiation on a daily basis. If there is no significant danger to society at large, does that justify the high cost of isolating patients? Typically cancer patients are isolated to protect their own immune system (which are compromised), not to protect others...but new immune boosters are making this less of an issue.

I'm not sure your fears of cancer in socialized medicine countries are founded in reality. Particularly for young adults (age 20-40) those systems typically stomp all over the U.S. in terms of cancer survival. As a last point, I would again emphasize that this is not socialized medicine.

The Lewin Group study I provided either in this thread or another does not support the idea that this will destroy private industry, or move us towards single payer. In fact it seems to suggest that this bill would strengthen our current system because more people would be in the insurance pool.

Anyway, from firstread.msnbc.com:

President Obama will ask them to consider four areas that Republicans suggested:

-- Medicare Fraud (Coburn)
-- Medical Malpractice
-- Health Savings Accounts
-- Upping reimbursement to doctors who see Medicaid patients (Grassley)

 

[werepossum]

When I got radiation I got the same advice that you think the Canadians do 🙂 I received radiation from what of the best cancer centers in the country, Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, NY. In all honestly I doubt we were radioactive enough to really do any harm to most people (if we were, we'd be dead). Most people are probably exposed to more solar radiation on a daily basis. If there is no significant danger to society at large, does that justify the high cost of isolating patients? Typically cancer patients are isolated to protect their own immune system (which are compromised), not to protect others...but new immune boosters are making this less of an issue.

I'm not sure your fears of cancer in socialized medicine countries are founded in reality. Particularly for young adults (age 20-40) those systems typically stomp all over the U.S. in terms of cancer survival. As a last point, I would again emphasize that this is not socialized medicine.

The Lewin Group study I provided either in this thread or another does not support the idea that this will destroy private industry, or move us towards single payer. In fact it seems to suggest that this bill would strengthen our current system because more people would be in the insurance pool.

Anyway, from firstread.msnbc.com:

I don't trust that Lewin Group study at all. They estimate the second decade cost at $80 billion; I'd guess at least that much annually. The Senate and House plans both provide subsidies up to 4 times the Federal Poverty Line, which takes us beyond median household income. The lower income brackets receive full Medicare funding. Just the recent unemployment extension was $10 billion IIRC, which covers only a small fraction of the country for less than half the year. No way the federal government can do something so big for so many people for a measly $8 billion a year.

I'm really glad to see Obama (at least potentially) addressing malpractice and expressing support for health savings accounts. I don't think this silly isolation business would exist in the USA (except maybe those living with small children or pregnant women) if not for the threat of a big lawsuit. While the regular nurses and orderlies would call me and ask me to step to the far side of the room so that they could drop off a meal or clean sheets, the radiation doctors and nurses (who see radioactive patients all day long) would come in like nothing was wrong. That tells me the isolation is probably more to protect the hospital than to protect those in contact with me, and therefore probably driven by legal rather than medical conditions. (Thyroid cancer patients get radioactive iodine, which doesn't completely nuke your immune system like chemo or some other kinds of radiation.) Hell, I could have had a baby by C-section and not gotten a private room for a week! (Assuming I was female anyway.) Eliminating protective medicine like this would go a long way toward lowering health care costs.

 

[Carmen813]

I don't trust that Lewin Group study at all. They estimate the second decade cost at $80 billion; I'd guess at least that much annually. The Senate and House plans both provide subsidies up to 4 times the Federal Poverty Line, which takes us beyond median household income. The lower income brackets receive full Medicare funding. Just the recent unemployment extension was $10 billion IIRC, which covers only a small fraction of the country for less than half the year. No way the federal government can do something so big for so many people for a measly $8 billion a year.

I'm really glad to see Obama (at least potentially) addressing malpractice and expressing support for health savings accounts. I don't think this silly isolation business would exist in the USA (except maybe those living with small children or pregnant women) if not for the threat of a big lawsuit. While the regular nurses and orderlies would call me and ask me to step to the far side of the room so that they could drop off a meal or clean sheets, the radiation doctors and nurses (who see radioactive patients all day long) would come in like nothing was wrong. That tells me the isolation is probably more to protect the hospital than to protect those in contact with me, and therefore probably driven by legal rather than medical conditions. (Thyroid cancer patients get radioactive iodine, which doesn't completely nuke your immune system like chemo or some other kinds of radiation.) Hell, I could have had a baby by C-section and not gotten a private room for a week! (Assuming I was female anyway.) Eliminating protective medicine like this would go a long way toward lowering health care costs.

I think the Lewin Group does a pretty good job, but I can understand if you disagree with them. I think in part they are owned by a private insurer (United Healthcare) my feeling is if this bill destroyed private industry, they would make it well known.

I'm not sure how far Obama will get with incorporating Republican ideas, but I really hope they are. I think it highlights the difference between him and some other Democrat leaders.

 

[OrByte]

Obama is getting closer to reconciliation! YES!!

 

[ebaycj]

Wait-- Drug companies pay physicians lots of money to speak, and the insurance companies are to blame. My driveway is really icy. Those damn insurance companies are responsible!!!

Part of their job is to not allow themselves to be defrauded, as fraud raises their costs, and therefore it raises everyone's costs. They are not doing that, however, and that is why costs have risen so quickly.

Some actuary somewhere did an analysis and found that it would be less risky to ignore the fraud than to prosecute/root out the fraud, because they would be sued less by pissed off customers. So they simply pass the cost of the fraud on.

Also, I fully support a wall of seperation between practicing doctors and drug companies / medical suppliers / medical providers (x-ray / ct / mri scan boutiques for example). ANY money transfer to the doctors (for any reason) or ownership of these companies by the doctors (including partial ownership via stock), needs to be publicly disclosed and easily available to the public.

 

[werepossum]

Just in case you needed any more evidence that President Obama's health care summit was nothing more than political cover, he's already announced what will be in the bill and that the Dems will use reconciliation to pass it. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...iliation-to-pass-senate-health-care-bill.html

Ironically this will probably help the Republicans as they are now almost certain to take the House and the Senate in November - but have no chance of earning a super majority like the Dems had. Now the Pubbies will have carte blanche to pass anything they wish using 51 votes. For all practical purposes the filibuster is dead - unless of course the Dems are bluffing. We'll have to see if the long term Democrat goal of getting the government in control of setting health insurance prices and coverage is worth losing the short term goal of re-election.

 

[thestain]

If not for the tax on medical devices and adding 31 million uninsured to the roll, some of the changes make enough sense for me to consider supporting this, but... taxing medical devices just does not make sense, so... any news on this front?

 

[QuantumPion]

Sorry if this has been posted before, but apparently Obama, the supposed Harvard Law graduate and President of the United States, does not know what the definition of insurance is, nor understand the difference between liability and personal property: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmo1rATDE00

And he wants to run our health care? :\

 

[Carmen813]

Sorry if this has been posted before, but apparently Obama, the supposed Harvard Law graduate and President of the United States, does not know what the definition of insurance is, nor understand the difference between liability and personal property: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmo1rATDE00

And he wants to run our health care? :\

Or maybe you are struggling to understand the definition of analogy?

 

[cubby1223]

*sigh*

Obama blasts Eric Cantor for the "prop" that was the actual legislation itself which is the primary subject of the debate...

then Obama orchestrates yet another speech where he lines up people in doctor coats behind him - what does he call those?

 

[cubby1223]

This whole process really is shocking. When Bart Stupak comes out and states how the legislation uses federal tax dollars to fund abortions, while Nancy Pelosi stands there and definitively says no, tax money is not being used to fund abortions...

Lemar Alexander says the CBO projects that private insurance plans will raise in costs, while Barrack Obama scolds him for not having the facts right (to which ends up Alexander was correct, Obama was wrong)...

isn't it pretty damn obvious that congress doesn't really have a grasp on what the bill *actually* does? They're good at the talking points, spelling out the _goals_, but as to how they are achieved who knows?

And they're planning to sign it in to law? Without understanding it?

 

[Carmen813]

This whole process really is shocking. When Bart Stupak comes out and states how the legislation uses federal tax dollars to fund abortions, while Nancy Pelosi stands there and definitively says no, tax money is not being used to fund abortions...

Lemar Alexander says the CBO projects that private insurance plans will raise in costs, while Barrack Obama scolds him for not having the facts right (to which ends up Alexander was correct, Obama was wrong)...

isn't it pretty damn obvious that congress doesn't really have a grasp on what the bill *actually* does? They're good at the talking points, spelling out the _goals_, but as to how they are achieved who knows?

And they're planning to sign it in to law? Without understanding it?

Alexander was only right if you ignore the rest of the context of what the CBO said. They said premiums would decrease by 14-20%, but that because a higher level of care would be available for less money, that many people would opt to paying "more" because they would purchase "better" insurance. Basically it makes insurance that was previously unobtainable for these individuals an option.

There is already language in the bill that says federal funds can't be used for abortions. The Stupak amendment would essentially lead to the elimination of ALL insurance coverage for abortion, not just plans that appeared on the exchange. It would also hinder the states abilities to choose to offer abortion coverage to Medicaid recipients (using state funds). It was an amendment essentially pushed for by U.S. Catholic bishops, whose position on abortion is quite clear to anyone with a functional central nervous system. So much for separation of church and state.