The House Health Care Bill Makes Progress For Gay Rights

[ProSense]

The House Health Care Bill Makes Progress For Gay Rights

Gay rights advocates are hoping that certain LGBT-friendly provisions now part of the House health care legislation “will be incorporated into the final bill” once the Senate and House bills are “reconciled in conference.”

The House bill “ends the unfair taxation of employer-provided domestic partner health benefits,” “designates LGBT people as a health disparities population,” “allows states to cover early HIV treatment under their Medicaid programs” and “prohibits consideration of personal characteristics unrelated to the provision of health care”:

- Ends the unfair taxation of employer-provided domestic partner health benefits: While federal law allows married workers who receive family health insurance benefits to deduct the value of that coverage from taxable income, workers who are unmarried and have domestic partners are required to pay taxes on the fair market value of their coverage. As a result, “employees with partner health benefits now pay on average $1,069 per year more in taxes than would a married employee with the same coverage.” As CAP’s ‘Unequal Taxes on Equal Benefits‘ concluded, “collectively, unmarried couples lose $178 million per year to additional taxes.” The bill extends the tax exclusion to domestic partnership benefits.

- Designates LGBT people as a health disparities population: This opens up health data collection and grant programs “focused on health disparities related to sexual orientation and gender identity, enabling the government to direct funding for research and public health efforts to address those disparities.” For instance, “gay men and lesbian women are at increased risk for certain cancers (lung, cervical, breast, and anal cancer), due to a higher prevalence of smoking and inadequate risk assessment and screening by providers.” Greater research into these disparities would allow the federal government to “target the health promotion campaigns” about “smoking prevention and cessation activities” to LGBT populations.

- Provides states to expand coverage for early HIV treatment under their Medicaid programs: Medicaid “covers 55 percent of all people living with AIDS and 90 percent of all children living with AIDS who are receiving medical care.” Under current law, “individuals with HIV/AIDS who qualify for Medicaid do so because they are certified as disabled,” (which means that they will not be eligible for services until their immune systems have declined to the point of an AIDS diagnosis and/or they are no longer able to work). At this stage and is often “too sick to benefit from current therapies” and is “past the recommended point to begin treatment.” This provision, based on the bipartisan The Early Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA), would allow more HIV positive people to receive treatment at earlier stages and would “dramatically improve the quality of life for low-income people with HIV, as well as saving taxpayers money and reducing the transmission of the virus.” The Senate bill

- Prohibits consideration of personal characteristics unrelated to the provision of health care: The bill specifies that all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services. Consideration of sexual orientation and gender identity in the dispensation of medical care has long disadvantaged the LGBT community.

Josh Rosenthal has more on how health reform can address the specific needs of LGBT Americans.

[MNDemNY]

1. How is that bill with respect to womans' rights??

How are you liking that aspect?? Are you willing to toss reproductive freedom under the bus to pass this turkey??? WILL YOU SUPPORT THIS BILL WITH THE STUPAK AMENDMENT INTACT?

[ProSense]

2. There are things in the bill that end discrimination based on gender

The Stupak amendment can be stripped. The key is to keep the good things intact.

[MNDemNY]

3. Will you support the bill with the Stupak amendment intact?

That is an easy yes, or no.

[ProSense]

4. Will you support it if it's stripped? Actually,

did you ever support it?

[MNDemNY]

5. Why do you find it so hard to answer that question?

To answer yours, no, i do not support this bill. I do support health care reform. You are well aware of my position on it. I am asking you if you are willing to accept the Stupak amendment in order to pass this bill. With all of your pushing of this bill, I think you owe it to , not me, but all other DUers who read and recommend your posts. I am betting you WILL NOT GIVE A YES ORE NO ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION> please prove me wrong.

[ProSense]

7. "To answer yours, no, i do not support this bill."

So you're just using the Stupak amendment to further your agenda?

[MNDemNY]

8. You seem willing to toss 40 years of progress on reproductive rights to further yours.

I am transparent as glass, you need to open up a little. Is the Stupak Amendment a deal killer for YOU???

[ProSense]

9. You already toss 100 years of progress out the window.

Bitter?

[MNDemNY]

11. Not as bitter as millions of women will be if this dog passes.

Shame on you.

[vaberella]

15. I'm one of the millions of women this bill will actually save.

So...uh...shame on you. This is also not counting the millions of men as well.

[MNDemNY]

21. So you are willing to accept the Stupak Amendment Intact?

[MNDemNY]

12. Not as bitter as millions of women will be if this dog passes.

Shame on you.

[MNDemNY]

6. poke.

[ThomCat]

16. A lot of standard GYN care is not required to be covered under this bill.

The list of standard medical services that must be covered by any participating insurance plan lacking, and very biased against women. It isn't just the prohibition on abortions that makes this bill a loser.

Every time legislators tried to add GYN services for women republicans and blue dogs started screaming about abortion even when the services had nothing to do with abortion. So a whole lot of stuff was left out.

In order to treat women fairly and adequately, this bill needs to be trashed and renegotiated.

[Prism]

10. I don't care

Unlike the conservadems, I will not throw women and the poor under the bus for incremental, self-interested advance.

Don't. Care.

[MNDemNY]

13. You are a good Democrat.

:thumbsup:

[ProSense]

14. "the poor under the bus for incremental, self-interested advance."

Right you'd rather see 40,000 people continue dying each year because you can't get what you want.

That's not standing on principle, that's pouting.

[MNDemNY]

17. Is that a YES?

[ProSense]

18. Are you that stupid? n/t

[MNDemNY]

20. Answer the question.

[Prism]

19. How long have you been beating your wife?

And how much does it correlate with taking up internet posting as a second job?

I'm just asking questions, you know.

Also, did you ever once regret kicking the puppies?

[ProSense]

23. You said the poor is being throw under a bus

when there are people currently ineligible for Medicaid who will be eligible for it after reform. There are other low income Americans who are paying high premiums who will be eligible for subsidies after reform.

Again, you seem unconcerned that reform will sinificantly reduce the number of people dying due to lack of coverage. You appear ready to see it fail simply because it doesn't meet your standards.

[Cha]

22. Good and we already are assured that

the stupak part isn't going to make the final cut.

Thanks for the news, PS~

[MNDemNY]

24. "assured" by whom???

That is bull.

[Cha]

25. No, you're Bull..I've seen your hotheaded commentary.

[MNDemNY]

26. Again, "assured" by whom? Fairies in your head?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: