The Washington Times reported today, “The Supreme Court  upheld the heart of President Obama’s health care law, ruling the federal government can compel Americans to buy health insurance.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who wrote the controlling opinion, attempted a delicate balancing act: He said the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses of the Constitution cannot be bent to compel Americans to buy insurance, but said it is allowed under Congress’s tax and spending powers, which are broader, but are subject to the checks of the political system.

“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain in­dividuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Be­cause the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,” he wrote.

We heard from the National Center for Policy Analysis’s,  President John C. Goodman, on the Supreme Court’s ruling today on the Affordable Care Act;

 ”Congress can repeal the ACA and replace it with universal health care coverage without any mandates”. Dr. Goodman noted that, as a candidate, Barack Obama opposed the individual mandate but supported universal coverage. “Unfortunately, he abandoned both ideas,” said Goodman.

 How can we do this?  Basically by following the McCain/Coburn/Ryan approach.  Offer every American a refundable tax credit that is the same amount regardless of where the insurance is purchased: in the workplace, in a health exchange or in the marketplace.  “For instance, we can afford to offer a $2,500 per adult tax credit or an $8,000 credit per family,” said Goodman.  The unclaimed tax credits go to fund the so-called ‘safety net’ programs so that there is an adequate amount of money for everybody.”

 “Many are concerned that if there is no mandate, people will wait until they get sick to buy insurance,” added Goodman. “The more important question is: Did we ever need the mandate at all? The answer is ‘no,’ not if we do it the right way.”

 

The present system of taxpayer funding for contraception and abortion, especially for lower income women, is under increased scrutiny and controversy as the supposed funding for abortions at taxpayer expense comes under fire. The recent cuts to the women’s health and family planning program and the defunding issues regarding Planned Parenthood are once again in the public eye.

Yet, what are the real issues causing the present controversy between the pro-life and the pro-choice movements? What exactly are the services being provided? Who is paying for what? Should taxpayers fund contraceptive care and pregnancy counseling?

Panelists Include

• Dianne Edmondson: Executive Director, Republican National Coalition for Life
• Karen Garnett: Executive Director, Catholic Pro-Life Committee of North Texas
• Ken Lambrecht: President & CEO, Planned Parenthood of North Texas
• Stephen McKernan, DO, FAAFP, CEO, Lone Star Family Health Center

There has long been an argument over taxpayers funding contraceptive care and divisiveness over government funding to Planned Parenthood by those who oppose abortion and claim that is in large part what the organization does. Diane Edmondson of Republican National Coalition for Life says, “We have cut funding to Planned Parenthood very intentionally… Federal law allows states to set qualifications for any provider receiving Medicaid funds. By eliminating providers such as Planned Parenthood – which are narrow in scope, we can actually provide better care to (low income) women.”

Yet the argument from Planned Parenthood and other family and women’s health providers is the urgent need for more access to health care not less. Ken Lambrecht of Planned Parenthood tells us: “The national average for physicians to patient’s ratio is 200 physicians to every 100,000 people; in Texas it is 157 physicians for every 100,000. In Texas, ¼ of women are uninsured, yet Texas has the 3^rd highest rate of cervical cancer and the 4^th highest rate of teen pregnancy. With Planned Parenthood representing 40-45% of health care visits via the women’s health care programs, women will not have anywhere to go. This issue is not about abortion… it’s about access to care. Our mission is prevention. We are the medical home to 1 of 5 women in the U.S. at some time in their life. ”

Karen Garnett of Catholic Pro Life Committee argues, “We can’t take abortion out of the equation. It is morally objectionable for many tax payers to have any of their tax dollars going to an organization that performs abortions.”

Dr. McKernan of Lone Star Family Health Center expresses his concerns for the need for access to comprehensive health care for low income women and their families. “The reality of this is that 185,000 women receive care through the women’s health care program; another 220,000 through the family planning program. These cuts could decimate these programs- that’s 400,000 women who will not have access to preventive care. The Legislature wasn’t thinking well.”

The issues surrounding who should pay for what and what gets funded by whom is not going away anytime soon. Yet this is an issue that affects us all- the tax payer and the people who need care and can’t afford the cost. We hope you tune in, question the perspectives our panelists offer and get involved – from whatever position you believe to be the fair one.

Thank you once again for joining us on issues that really matter with people who really care:

Niki Nicastro McCuistion, CSP
Co-founder and Executive Producer
Management and Strategic Analyst
nikin@nikimccuistion.com

***

2005 – 06.24.12

Featuring: Dr. Richard Leblanc, Author of Inside the Boardroom
Offered by: University of Texas at Dallas, (IECG) Institute for Excellence in Corporate Governance

Dr. Richard Leblanc, award-winning Associate Professor of Law, Governance and Ethics at York University in Toronto, shared his insights from his unique research in the boardroom and from the hundreds of interviews he has conducted with sitting board members. In addition to Inside the Boardroom: How Boards Really Work, Dr. Leblanc is the author of the Coming Revolution in Corporate Governance and co-author of 20 Questions Directors of Not-for-Profit Organizations Should Ask About Board Recruitment, Development and Assessment.

Some of the topics he covered in this presentation included:

• Does your nonprofit really need a functioning board?
• How do we know if we have the “right board?” Even if we do, what is the role of board leadership and behavior?
• Who should lead the board, and what are the two major types of board chairs?
• What are the five types of functional board members and how should they be identified and recruited?
• What are the five types of dysfunctional board members and how should they be avoided or “evaluated out?”
• What are the 20 Questions Directors of Not-for-Profit Organizations Should Ask About Board Recruitment, Development and Assessment?