‘Abortion-on-Demand, Funded by Taxpayers’: Scalise Lays Out the Truth of ‘Medicare for All’ Coverage

Steve Scalise
Allison Shelley/Getty Images

The “one-size-fits-all” way to go about health care with the Democrats’ “Medicare for All” bill will cause taxpayers to bear abortion expenses and force medical professionals to perform abortions, as GOP lawmakers are warning.

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), along with Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), wrote a Fox News op-ed that was published on Tuesday, laying out the facts on the controversial bill’s effect in regard to abortion.

The Medicare for All bill, which was led by 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and cosponsored by several other candidates, has been criticized over its hefty price tag of $32 trillion over 10 years, which is “hard to wrap your head around,” as the pair wrote.

“We need to cut health care costs, not completely demolish our health care system,” they declared.

Yuri Gripas/File Photo/Reuters

As for abortion, the health care bill would shift away from decadeslong bipartisan protection and instead require “taxpayer-funded abortions on demand and force health professionals to perform these abortions” — which they labeled “radical and unprecedented.”

When questioning the bill’s coverage of abortions, Scalise and Walden said it would because the bill covers “comprehensive reproductive, maternity, and newborn care.”

“This means abortion-on-demand, funded by taxpayers,” they said.

Additionally, medical professionals would be forced to perform abortions under Medicare for All, as the bill says that “items and services to eligible persons shall be furnished by the provider without discrimination.”

The congressmen continued:

The debate over health-care solutions is hard, but worthy of our best, because the choices we make now will impact the lives millions of Americans. That is why this is so important; why we must hold the line and defend life. Life is precious and we are committed to defending it.

As IJR Red previously reported, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget president Maya MacGuineas warned that Medicare for All policies — such as free tuition, health care, family leave, and child care — would foot hefty bills to taxpayers, costing “over $20,000 per taxpayer.”

“I know trillion is kind of hard to get your arms around, but when you bring it down per taxpayer, we are talking more than a $20,000 increase in taxes,” MacGuineas said.

What do you think?

13 pledges
Upvote Downvote
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Connie Atchley
Member

I don’t ever want to pay for anyone’s abortion. Let them keep their legs together and they won’t need an abortion. Shame on the Dems.

Curly Baca
Guest
Curly Baca

I STILL DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY THE GOP AND THOSE THAT REALLY CARE ABOUT AMERICA CALL THIS health care the democrats want, MEDICARE FOR NONE. I have been on Medicare for almost 20 years and their program will demolish our present Medicare system. While NOT perfect it’s the best there is and is serving those that are on it well. The young people who will get a free membership card is all they will have a free membership card BUT no health care. Long waiting lines, no coverage of any substance but the democrats will be able to say, BUT EVERYONE… Read more »

TOM
Member

I am a newly forced on to Medi-don’t-care. It costs me a fortune and covers nothing. In the 2 years that I have been on it EVERY medical expense that I have had came completely out of my own pocket and Medi-don’t-care paid nothing.

Cassandra Johnson
Member

Medicare alone pays very little. You need to find a decent supplement insurance. Medicare coverage is DIRT CHEAP for a reason.

MariaRose Randazzo
Member

Everyone is totally missing the point in this article, which is that whatever “Medicare for All” covers, the cost to taxpayers will be high. Unspoken is the fact that the insurers will still get their high-profit line with no lowered prices to us patients. This has nothing to do with what is covered but what we are really paying.

TOM
Member

The Medicare For All does away with ANY private insurance. The health insurance companies will cease to exist putting all the people who work in the insurance industry on the unemployment line.

Phoenix
Member

Thats not exactly true – assuming we would follow how other countries work, private insurance could still be purchased for supplemental insurance. It would change the industry, but not kill it.

Also, I’m one of those people who would be unemployed.

Cassandra Johnson
Member

Who do you think process the medicare insurance claims?????

Tom Bodine
Member

Free free free it’s the motto of the Demo-rats and all the lefties be they socialists or communists, lazy useless people that won’t fare for themselves and want successful people to pay for their stuff.

Joyce
Member

In fact, funding abortions would actually save taxpayers money, because the costs associated with childbirth, neonatal and pediatric care greatly exceed the costs of abortion. Public funding for abortion neither costs the taxpayer money nor drains resources from other services. On the question of pro-life vs. pro-choice…our tax dollars fund many programs that individual people oppose. For example, those who oppose war on moral or religious grounds pay taxes that are applied to military programs. The congressional bans on abortion funding impose a particular religious or moral viewpoint on those women who rely on government-funded health care. Providing funding for… Read more »

Sane voter
Guest
Sane voter

If thats the case Joyce lets save the taxpayers a lot of money and abort all democrats that are capable of working and collect off the people who work!We could also force feed the abortion pills that we are forced to pay for against our beliefs down your throat so why wolud you wait to even have a baby to kill?O thats right hate is not welcome here

David Fagan
Member

44% of US pays no taxes so the other half has to pay for them too, that’s 40K per family. At 40K you might as well join unemployment and get on the 44% side with free healthcare. I think that’s why SOCIALISM doesn’t work.
Quick math tells me US TAX PAYERS would have to pay 1.528e+12, 1.5 TRILLION for people to sit on the a….s and get free healthcare.

Gary Glissman
Member

These politicians are so incredibly stupid and refuse to share all of the truth. How much do they think is being spent on health care in the US today? It is over $3 trillion per year, so in 10 years that cost will be well over $30 trillion. And how much of that is going to PROFITS by the big insureres, pharma and hospital systems? It is almost 30% of the total spend!!! That’s what goes away with a Medixcare for All system.Most of that $1 trillion profit per year will no longer be spent and lobbyist dollars for those… Read more »

Mary Murphy
Guest
Mary Murphy

Talk to a few people in countries where they have socialized medicine and get the REAL information on what it would cost, NOT TO MENTION the change in wait times for important, life saving surgeries and medicines. Who do you want deciding when you can see the doctor or get relief from painful conditions your doctor or some arrogant “public servant”?

Ed
Member

We spent $3.65B in 2018. $30B over 10 years is a bargain. Why would wait times increase? Doctors would probably earn more money, if they’re not negotiating with 10 different insurers and paying the staff to deal with them all. It’s not as if doctors will stop practicing. But, too many people will cry “socialism”, cut their noses off in spite of their faces, and vote to spend their life’s savings on end-of-life healthcare costs.

Phoenix
Member

Potentially 20k per tax payer, but you would remove all insurance and medical costs families are spending now – its not as horrifying of a number when that’s considered. “..comprehensive reproductive, maternity, and newborn care.” There is a lot included in that. Most all of it is great stuff which SHOULD be provided without discrimination in a medicare for all instance. Honestly, i would agree that abortion should not be included in that. I’m a big advocate for pro choice, but being cognizant of people who are against abortions and why, i don’t think tax payer money should go to… Read more »

David Fagan
Member

20K per TAXPAYER, being over 1/2 the US doesn’t pay taxes and there’s these pesky things called CHILDREN, 20K is a wild a.. dream. It would take at least a 30% tax on everyone working which also would trigger a whole lot more unemployment when working isn’t worth it and healthcare is free (paid by yes someone else) . I know a LOT of people working just for healthcare, no I don’t feel sorry for them.

Phoenix
Member

What do you mean there are these pesky things called children? They are not taxpayers and i see no reason to assume any healthcare needed wouldn’t already be factored in to the estimate. Also, the 20k include tuition – not just healthcare. So if anything, this would drop of we are talking just healthcare. Do you have evidence that unemployment would rise and stay high other than just your assumptions? Its not ground breaking to have government guaranteed healthcare – many of these other countries have just as low unemployment rates as we do today. Are you saying the US… Read more »

TOM
Member

There is a little bugaboo in your comment. Under socialism / communism the capitalist idea of work harder get more goes away and so does the incentive to work. Because there is no incentive to work does not does not mean that you are “unemployed” since you have no interest in working.

Phoenix
Member

I disagree with your assessment that we would be a socialist country. We would remain a capitalist country with social programs – be truthful. There are plenty of countries like Canada and the UK that show social programs and capitalism can work together just fine.

Mark Schlesinger
Member

Why should the baby die when we don’t execute rapists. Kill the rapist, spare the baby, and stand by the victim.

Phoenix
Member

We don’t even stand by victims now. The baby doesnt need to die – there could be plenty of efforts to support a rape victim who chooses to carry to term and i would imagine such support may convince some women to carry to term. But it’s especially heinous for the government to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term when she was raped. That you would suggest that shows you either care nothing for women or are massively oversimplifying both rape and pregnancy to the point you don’t understand what you’re saying. Force women to carry pregnancies… Read more »

Crenshaw: It’s ‘Absolutely Necessary’ to Back Graham, Trump’s Immigration Plans to Protect Our ‘Sovereignty’

One Day After Announcing Wage Gap Plan, Report Shows Men Are Paid More Than Women in Kamala Harris’ Office