affordable health care act and section 1303

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

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.

So, 1303 don't look so bad, then. What's up with all of this hullabaloo about ACA forcing objectors to pay for abortions? Is it another section, or just more rightwing nonsense?

[merrylander]

All that was to get one congress critter's vot, don't recall who at the moment.

[finnbow]

My only problem with it is that it comes from a law that apparently has over 1303 sections.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

My only problem with it is that it comes from a law that apparently has over 1303 sections.

Does appear a bit excessive, doesn't it?

However,

Sometimes I wonder if a document that was only a few pages long, devoid of details and specificity would be even worse? I guess it's a case of "too much vs. too little"?

Dave

[Charles]

Originally Posted by finnbow

My only problem with it is that it comes from a law that apparently has over 1303 sections.

There's the punchline, anyone care to make a guess as to what the joke is?

Chas

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Charles

There's the punchline, anyone care to make a guess as to what the joke is?

Chas

Dayum, Chas. I guess I'm funny even when I'm trying to be serious.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Dayum, Chas. I guess I'm funny even when I'm trying to be serious.

You're a laff a minute, that's why I find you to be "interesting".

Besides, you're an angler, and I cotton to anglers. At least the one's who are willing fish something besides a farm pond.

As a rule, they bore me to tears. I gave up the cane pole years ago.

Chas

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Charles

You're a laff a minute, that's why I find you to be "interesting".

Besides, you're an angler, and I cotton to anglers. At least the one's who are willing fish something besides a farm pond.

As a rule, they bore me to tears. I gave up the cane pole years ago.

Chas

Oops. Farm ponds (at least in these parts) are some of the best fishing around. They can hold some huge bass and bluegills if they've been ignored for awhile. Big slab bluegills on a flyrod from a farm pond is some serious fun, not to mention some good eating. I typically return all bass to the ponds though.

BTW, in "Missouri talk," what does "interesting" mean?

[Wasillaguy]

Biggest bass I ever caught was from a cow pond so small you could easily cast twice it's distance across.