US Catholic Bishops & the Affordable Health Care for America Act
Regarding the below:
boutofcontext: Separately, if you read the appeal, the Bishops are at worst two for three today on advocacy. Their other positions were:
generic1: (excerpted)…We’ve got a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President … in what is arguably the most important Democratic domestic policy initiative of the past three decades, also during what is arguably the easiest point in the process for liberals—the House vote—and the bishops weren’t able to convince Democrats to even consider expanding Medicaid or even consider illegal immigrants…
- Regardless of status, immigrants living in our country need to have access to health care just as any other human being…
- Because we support and advocate in favor of affordable and accessible health care for all, especially the poor and marginalized, we want legislation that expands Medicaid eligibility for adults living at 150 percent or lower of the federal poverty level…
Refer to Title VII, Subtitle A, §1701 of the Affordable Health Care for America Act, Eligibility For Individuals With Income Below 150 Percent of the Federal Poverty Level, the exact group Bishops advocated for.
Another section closes existing gaps for newborns, covering all otherwise-uninsured infants under Medicaid from birth; an important social justice issue, especially given the abortion funding restriction. Since these newborns are natural-born citizens under US Code Title 8, 12.III.1 §1401.a, regardless of their parents’ statuses, they won’t be affected by failure to cover illegals.
There is also some language in §1703 about reconciling (S-)CHIP with the act (including “CHIP-eligible pregnant women”) the jist of which is, minimally, States can’t make S-CHIP access more restrictive than requirements for the expanded Medicaid. States may continue providing coverage up to 300% of FPL, (~400% in NY, NJ) for pregnant women and children in high cost-of-living states earning above the expanded Medicaid threshold.
I agree that illegal immigrant advocacy was unsuccessful on its face. However, as the Conservatives lament, there remain loopholes-
- “presumptive eligibility” (§1714) for services, including family planning, covering illegals prior to verification (lasting at least 120 days including review and notice periods)
- maintaining undocumented declaration under S-CHIP for children/pregnant women, (again, at least 120 days, CHIPRA 2009 II.B.211)
- States retain discretion to cover “unborn children” of illegal aliens, necessarily including the mother until birth
- Leaving in place a lift of the five-year ban on newly-arrived immigrant coverage.
It’s undignified to make the poor/sick jump through these hoops in a nation of plenty, but, in addition to emergency room coverage under EMTALA, its something.
via • link![generic1: “The [anti-abortion] amendment is also a big win for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which used its power, especially with conservative Democrats in swing congressional districts, to help force Democratic leaders to permit a vote that most of them oppose.”
joyengel:…Religion: it gits all up in ya crevices.
icanseenewyorkcityfrommyhouse:…It wasn’t until a Jesuit priest told me thst that the Catholic faith RESPECTED my choice and had faith in me, equivocating the idea that abortion is a choice. And that no one is forcing that matter and that it remains a part of a woman’s conscience ultimately…
Insurers specialize in blocking elective surgical procedures. It’s a lucky coincidence for the USCCB abortion’s usually elective. We can still have such procedures on our dimes since a nationalization of health services isn’t quite on the table; we just can’t assume they’ll be reimbursed.
Medically necessary procedures resulting in a loss of the fetus will continue to be covered; another fortunate coincidence since mother-saving procedures at expense of the fetus are (I’m skipping some nuance, but basically) acceptable to Catholic moral teaching.
Separately, if you read the appeal, the Bishops are at worst two for three today on advocacy. Their other positions were:
Regardless of status, immigrants living in our country need to have access to health care just as any other human being…
Because we support and advocate in favor of affordable and accessible health care for all, especially the poor and marginalized, we want legislation that expands Medicaid eligibility for adults living at 150 percent or lower of the federal poverty level…](http://19.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ksrvnuPh1H1qzbemso1_500.jpg)
