House OKs religious exemptions to having a healthcare plan

[rug]

March 11, 2014, 05:37 pm
By Pete Kasperowicz

House Democrats joined Republicans on Tuesday to pass legislation that would expand an exemption under ObamaCare for people who don't want health insurance for religious reasons.

The Republican House has passed dozens of bills to chip away at ObamaCare over the last few years, some of which had support from more than 30 Democrats. But the bill up today was considered under a suspension of the rules, which meant that support from about 50 Democrats was needed in order for the bills to pass with a two-thirds majority vote.

Its easy passage by voice vote sets up the possibility that it could be considered by the Senate, unlike the dozens of other bills that were mostly supported by Republicans and then ignored by Senate Democrats.

Members approved the Equitable Access to Care and Health (EACH) Act, H.R. 1814. The bill would let people avoid buying health insurance under ObamaCare if they can cite a religious reason.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/votes/200497-dems-gop-agree-on-religion-tweak-to-obamacare

It won't pass the Senate. Vote in the midterms.

[cbayer]

1. Who exactly is this supposed to apply to? Christian Scientists?

What kind of religious argument could someone use to get the exemption?

The article seems to go off on a different path.

[rug]

2. Here's the text of the amendment:

C) Additional religious exemption.—

(i) In general.—

Such term shall not include an individual for any month during a taxable year if such individual files a sworn statement, as part of the return of tax for the taxable year, that the individual was not covered under minimum essential coverage at any time during such taxable year and that the individual’s sincerely held religious beliefs would cause the individual to object to medical health care that would be covered under such coverage.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1814/text

Looks like it would also cover the parents who were recently sentenced after their second child died without treatment.

The bill has a "24% chance of being enacted."

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1814

[cbayer]

3. I hope you are right. This bill presents profound ethical dilemmas.

Should these people carry a card saying that they should not be given emergency medical care because of their religious beliefs?

Should any parent be allowed to claim this exemption for their child??

Refusing blood transfusions is one thing and there are work arounds, but all medical care?

[rug]

4. Fortunately this bill is limited to an exemption from the ACA fine.

If passed it simply requires an additional IRS form to be filed with the tax return.

Reckless or criminally negligent conduct is still covered by the penal codes.

[cbayer]

5. But it would allow them to get away with being uninsured until

they actually needed it, which deeply undermines the whole concept.

[rug]

6. It would but the sworn statement essentially says they don't need it.

They'd lose the exemption when they realized they did.

(ii) Nullified if receipt of medical health care during taxable year.—

Clause (i)shall not apply to an individual for any month during a taxable year if the individual received medical health care during the taxable year.

[cbayer]

7. Now I'm really confused.

They could opt in and out on a monthly basis? Or just pay the fine on a monthly basis if they used medical services during a specific month?

Legal language makes my head spin.

[rug]

8. Just about but it's on an annual basis.

That's pretty much how the ACA is set up.

If you don't enroll you pay the fine. Some, at least initially, find it cheaper to pay the fine than to pay the insurance premium. If they bet wrong and get sick or have an accident, they can sign up the next year.

This amendment aims to waive the penalty if they file the IRS form.

[eomer]

38. Looks like it could possibly apply very broadly.

... sincerely held religious beliefs would cause the individual to object to medical health care that would be covered under such coverage.

That arguably could include an objection to just one coverage of the plan and makes me think that objecting to contraception coverage may be what they're angling for.

And it sounds like you wouldn't have to be specific but rather just swear to the general objection.

So it seems to me it could be used very broadly.

[cbayer]

40. The contraception exception seems like a real stretch.

It's one thing for employers to make the argument that they don't want to pay for it, but quite another for an individual to say they want to opt out of a plan that provides a benefit they don't intend to use.

But I agree that it seems very vague, which is really worrisome.

[edhopper]

9. if this passed

it would be used for religious reasons as much as medical marijuana is used for only health issues.
Special pleading wins again.

[cbayer]

10. I'm not so sure. What religious reasons could one use to claim the exemption?

Besides, it looks highly unlikely to pass, so there is no "special pleading" argument.

[edhopper]

16. the bill itself is

special pleading.
And what makes you so sure, it had wide Den support in the House.

[cbayer]

17. rug posted a link upthread which indicates a 24% chance of passage in the senate.

These kinds of things are going to continue to be proposed. Defeating them repeatedly is the key.

[edhopper]

19. Yes it is

but is the big money, Koch/Faux backed RW spin gets behind it, the Dems will turn over like trained dogs so they don't offend anybody's beliefs.

[cbayer]

20. I have more faith in them than you do, but we shall see.

[edhopper]

21. You completely misread that article

it said 23% of bills that make it out of committee pass, that is an average of all bills, it says nothing about this particular bill which won with only one Dem voting against it, if it gets to the Senate, it will pass.
And then we are on to the next way being obsequious to religion can fuck up the country.

[cbayer]

22. You are correct. It's a statistical average and not an analysis of this particular bill.

I am disappointed in the amount of democrat support, but I also don't really understand the particulars of this bill.

My question would be this - is it narrow enough to apply to only a very small population or too vague to be that limited.

Another member noted that it would apply to the Amish and Native Americans living on reservations. I'm not sure how the religious exemption would apply to native americans and unsure who else might claim it.

At any rate, I agree with you that it could potentially lead to abuse by those who want to make further religious inroads into the government and do not support that.

[edhopper]

23. If a Republican gets into office

it will be as open as getting a prescription to medical marijuana.
No one will be challenged and the ACA will see a slow demise.

[cbayer]

24. I think the ACA has kicked open a door that can not be shut

and that it will lead to universal healthcare in a much shorter period of time than I ever thought possible.

These challenges will continue, but have failed for the most part. It will be very interesting and telling to see what SCOTUS does with the cases it will be hearing.

I happen to agree with you about the MMJ debacle, but not sure that there is a good analogy here.

No one enforced the law (at least in California) which led to rampant abuse and to a furthering of restrictions instead of the hoped for lessening of them.

I'm not at all convinced that there would be the same degree of lack of enforcement when it comes to things like this.

[edhopper]

25. So you weren't in this country during the Bush

administration?

[cbayer]

26. Excuse me?

[edhopper]

27. " I'm not at all convinced that there would be the same degree of lack of enforcement

when it comes to things like this."
How many categories of lack of enforcement do you want? Financial, environmental, war profiteering, etc...

[cbayer]

28. I'm not sure where you are going with this.

I agree with you that it is critical that we keep all three branches from going back to those dark days and I think we can do that.

[edhopper]

29. I am saying

the Republicans have a long history of not enforcing the law when it suits them. A Repug administration would allow any and all who wanted this exemption to have it, undermining the ACA even further (they way they already have with Medicaid expansion).
Not sure how you can't see this.

[cbayer]

30. Not sure how I can't see this? We are on exactly the same page and I totally agree with you.

I am opposed to this legislation and any legislation that attempts to undermine the ACA or push a religious agenda where it doesn't belong.

Are you just looking for a point of disagreement?

[edhopper]

31. Our disagreement

is over how big a chance this has to pas and how much damage it can do to the ACA.
Your response has lead me to believe you think the ACA is here to stay and Universal Care is right around the corner. And this won't change that.
I see it's passage as much more dire.
And in the hands of a Republican can torpedo it.

[cbayer]

32. I am just more optimistic about the ACA, that's all.

It's not really a disagreement.

I never said this wouldn't change that, only that I don't think it will pass.

In no way am I supporting this or blowing it off. As I said above, there are all kinds of dire consequences that could come about as a result of this.

[edhopper]

33. I know you don't support this

and am hopefully the ACA will lead to universal health, but I don't think the Republicans will ever stop.
They are still trying to kill Social Security and every inch the Dems give up is closer they get.

[okasha]

34. Native Americans sometimes prefer

traditional remedies to conventional medicine. At least some of the time, the traditional treatments work better, or work where no conventional treatment is available. My grandfather made my dad a smoking mixture for his emphysema that helped him more than the prescribed oxygen.

Russell Means opted for traditional treatment only in the last stage of his cancer. NA medicine makes a distinction between "cured"--the ill or injured person returns to normal function--and "healed"--the ill or injured person may or may not return to normal function, but is returned to mental and spiritual health. (That's probably not expressed as well as it could be, but the NA terms for "mental and spiritual health" just don't translate well into English.)

[cbayer]

36. While that is true, would that constitute a religious exemption in this case?

Having options seems like a very different issue.

[okasha]

37. Maybe.

Many healers, such as the late Frank Fools Crow and my grandfather and great-grandfather, are also spiritual leaders. Some, though, are quite literally medicine men and women. They specialize in traditional cures.

Even very traditional NAs, though, tend to use a combination of traditional and conventional methods. The exemption may apply specifically to reservations because the BIA clinics/hospitals provide services free or at very low cost and may be considered a form of insurance.

Maybe rug could comment on this aspect from a legal standpoint.

[cbayer]

39. You confirm what I thought about using a combination of methods.

So I still don't understand why an exemption from coverage for conventional methods would make sense.

I think my confusion may be a reflection of how poorly this bill has been thought out and written.

[rug]

11. You're cynical but correct.

[HockeyMom]

12. Research on who already are exempt

The Amish are exempt. Also nationally recognized Native American tribes on reservations are also exempt. Interesting. They do not have to purchase insurance, nor pay the fine.

[rug]

13. The Amish are also exempt from Social Security.

[HockeyMom]

15. Amish didn't surprise me at all

but Natives did. I suppose because they live in their own Nations?

[rug]

18. That's most likely. Probably has to do with sovereignty and taxation, like cigarettes and gambling.

[cbayer]

14. Don't native americans on reservations get their healthcare through a completely

separate system?

[okasha]

35. Yes, they do.

It's the Indian Health Care Service, run by the BIA/Dept. of the Interior. But see also my post above. Some prefer the traditional remedies.