10 Health Care Reform Myths

With Confusion and Misinformation Coming from Both Sides, CBSNews.com Explains What's Really in the Bill

(CBS)  This story was written by CBSNews.com political reporter Stephanie Condon.

---

The intense debate surrounding health care reform is following lawmakers home this month as they depart Washington for the August recess with a reform bill in limbo.

Over the course of the past few months, the rhetoric frcom both the left and the right, from politicians and activists, has been heated and sometimes misleading. With a month with nothing to do but argue, both sides are sure to keep up the partisan and potentially deceitful messages.

"The more complicated an issue is, the more easily one can twist and distort the facts about it, and health care is as complicated as they come," said Brooks Jackson, a veteran journalist and now the director of FactCheck.org. His organization, a nonpartisan, nonprofit project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, tracks the factual inaccuracies and misleading statements that thread through political communications.

Related: Did Obama Mess Up Health Care Politics?
"A lot of the misstatements have stuck with the public," Jackson said. "We're talking about one sixth of the economy and one bill more than 1,000 pages long, so it definitely lends itself to distortion and fear-mongering."

It can be complicated for citizens who simply want to follow the issue and know the facts. Here is a look at 10 myths being told by both sides of the debate, and the reality.

1. The House Health Care Bill Mandates or Encourages Euthanasia

At a tele-town hall meeting with members of the senior advocacy group AARP last month, President Obama could not help but describe one question he received as "kind of morbid."

"I have been told there is a clause in (the health care bill) that everyone that's Medicare age will be visited and told to decide how they wish to die," said a caller named Mary from North Carolina. "This bothers me greatly, and I'd like for you to promise me that this is not in this bill."

There is nothing in any health care reform bill before Congress that would require people to "decide how they wish to die." Conservative talking points from activists and legislators, however, would suggest otherwise.

This rumor gained traction in large part because of comments from former Republican lieutenant governor of New York Betsy McCaughey. On a radio show on July 16, McCaughey said she had read the bill and discovered that "Congress would make it mandatory... that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner, how to decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go into hospice care... all to do what's in society's best interest... and cut your life short."

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Republican Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) put out a statement on July 23 that suggested as much.

"Section 1233 of the House-drafted legislation encourages health care providers to provide their Medicare patients with counseling on 'the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration' and other end of life treatments, and may place seniors in situations where they feel pressured to sign end of life directives they would not otherwise sign," they said. "This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law."

In fact, section 1233 of the House bill would allow Medicare for the first time to cover patient-doctor consultations about end-of-life planning, including discussions about drawing up a living will or planning hospice treatment. Patients would, of course, seek out such advice on their own -- they would not be required to. The provision would limit Medicare coverage to one consultation every five years.

2. Americans Will Lose Their Private Insurance

A prevalent conservative talking point is that the proposed government-sponsored health insurance plan, or "public option," could drive private insurers out of business and that millions of Americans would lose their current health insurance.

In a letter to the president in June, nine Senate Republicans from one of the committees responsible for health care said "forcing free market plans to compete with these government-run programs would create an unlevel playing field and inevitably doom true competition." The letter cites a study by the Lewin Group that shows that if Medicare payment levels were used in the public plan, premiums would be up to 30 percent less than premiums for comparable private coverage, potentially prompting more than 119 million people to switch from private to public insurance if the plan were open to everyone. The Republican letter characterized this shift in care as "119.1 million Americans losing their private coverage."

In fact, that figure represents Americans who would presumably change their plans voluntarily. The bill does not force private insurers out of business or force people onto the public plan.

Moreover, that large number represents what shift may occur if the public plan were open to everyone. The legislation in both the House and the Senate, however, would actually prohibit many people with employer-based insurance from switching to the public option, even if they wanted to.

The CBO, in fact, estimates the House bill would result in a net increase of 3 million Americans with employer-provided care.

3. You Will Be Able to Keep Your Plan

On the flip side, Mr. Obama has made a strong commitment to let people keep the plans they have.

"Here's a guarantee that I've made," the president said at the AARP tele-town hall conference. "If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance."

Democrats would indeed compel employers to continue to shoulder some of the cost burden of health care by creating a "pay or play" mandate, requiring companies to either provide insurance for their workers or pay a fine. However, employer coverage would have to meet certain requirements; for example, plans would not be allowed to charge co-pays for preventive care. It is possible some companies would have to alter their coverage, or would instead choose to drop their coverage all together and pay a fine.


4. The Blue Dogs Are Primarily Interested in Cutting Government Costs in Health Care Reform

When the self-described fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats negotiated a compromise with Democratic leadership over certain elements of health care reform, they won headlines such as "House Democrats Trim $100B from Health Bill."

"I think, rightly, a number of these so-called Blue Dog Democrats -- more conservative Democrats -- were concerned that not enough had been done on reducing costs," Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS News.

Indeed, the Blue Dogs convinced their Democratic colleagues to cut government costs by reducing the amount the government will spend in subsidies to make health care more affordable for low- and middle-income Americans. The compromise also shifts some of the cost of expanding Medicaid from the federal government to the states.

However, the compromise also would require the government-sponsored health insurance option that would be created to negotiate its own payment rates, rather than using Medicare payment rates. This would create a more level playing field for private insurers, Blue Dogs said. The compromise also exempts more small businesses from the "pay or play" mandate, giving businesses a smaller share of the cost burden.

Politico reported that, according to a CBO preliminary analysis, the cost of those two changes would almost completely offset the $100 billion achieved in savings.

"Allowing doctors and other health care providers to negotiate rates with the government under a public option would cost the government about $60 billion, according to a preliminary CBO estimate," Politico reported. "And exempting small businesses with a combined salary of $250,000-a-year to $500,000-a-year would cost the government $30 billion, according to the same estimates."

5. The Health Care Legislation Mandates Taxpayer Dollars Pay for Abortions

Anti-abortion rights advocacy groups and legislators alike have complained that the health care legislation includes a "hidden abortion mandate," as some congressmen have put it.

In late June, 19 Democrats sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calling the issue a deal-breaker. "Plans to mandate coverage for abortions, either directly or indirectly is unacceptable," they wrote.

The letter specifically referred to the "essential benefits package" a Health Benefits Advisory Committee and the Secretary of Health and Human Services would be responsible for defining. Nothing in the legislation, however, has "mandated" that abortion services be included in the benefits package.

In fact, the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Thursday adopted an amendment, proposed by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), that would prohibit taxpayer dollars from funding abortions. The amendment would not allow the federal government to either require or prohibit abortion coverage by private insurers. It requires at least one plan from the federal health insurance exchange in each region of the country to cover abortion, and at least one of the plans to not cover abortion.

"Private health care providers are free to cover abortion, but not with federal funds," reports Dan Gilgoff of U.S. News and World Report. "The public plan would cover abortion, but not with federal funds; a Capitol Hill aide tells me money for abortions would come from what participants pay into the public plan."

It has yet to be determined how this issue will finally be settled.

Mr. Obama told CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric in July that "I'm pro-choice, but I think we also have the tradition in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care."

Go to page 2 to see myths 6-10.

[yousuck1981]

m521212, after reading your comment, I have to say its completely irrelavent and one of the far less important things concerning health care. And as for your opposition to smoking in restaurants, how about you step out of the restaurant instead of deteriorating the health of innocent children? How about you go and destroy your own, as opposed to them having to sit with your chimney ass for an hour or what have you, while you can afford 5 minutes outside? And more on that note, its a good, no let me rephrase that, GREAT THING, it was outlawed nationally because now we are saving more lives and preventing more people from having to seek health care for their POOR CHOICES or subjugation of poor choices by others like yourself. Thanks. As for your comments about the languages, pressing one and two. Man, if thats what really grinds your gears, then I dont know if you can handle the things that really matter like people having proper health care treatment and proper education and the reasons these things are being prevented. You have really made my night and view on humanity so much more hopeful. Everyone else, you seem to be far more educated and Im sorry I called out whoever this person is, but I couldn't and didnt want to contain myself. Somebody had to give them a cup of scolding coffee.

[dlwservice]

here is a solution for a lot of healthcare woes...
www.DLW.zurvitahealth.biz
click on more info.

[wyattnevada]

If the health care reform bill is so good for the American people.....why won't congress give up their plan and join the new plan?

You gotta wonder!

[buzz durio]

The only accurate thing in this article is the date. The only good thing is, it's out of date.

[purelies]

ah this reform is sure generating a lot of attention, but we just have to accept that it will happen lets just hope that we dont end up with something like this http://www.typobounty.com/Funny/Health_Care_Reform3.htm

[BitterDoc]

If Your Lawyer Had To Work Like A Doctor

He?d have to accept a train wreck like Bernie Madoff and work on his defense day and night for at least a month. All for a $10 copay and a $13 monthly capitation payment from Bernie?s HMO.

It would take 90 days and 4 phone calls by his office staff to get that $13 payment.

If he worked all day to get Bernie out of jail and Bernie then stupidly got arrested for public intoxication an hour after he was released your lawyer would then have to represent Bernie in court for free because he ?bounced back? into the justice system within 24 hours.

If a client came in to his office and needed representation for a life threatening indictment, say capital murder, your lawyer would be obligated to represent them without respect to the client?s ability to pay. In fact, it would be illegal to turn them away, and he would be legally obligated to represent them until the client was no longer in danger of the death penalty.

If he got stuck in traffic on the way to the Courthouse he would white knuckle the steering wheel and grit his teeth at the lost time and income the delay represented.

When typing a brief or discussing a defense strategy with a client on the phone he would work as quickly as possible to take care of the current issue and then move on to the next client as soon as possible because he knows he will get paid the same whether he spends 3 minutes or 43 minutes with the client.

He would place small ads in the phonebook, if he could afford to advertise at all. Advertising on television would be out of the question.

His office would have worn carpet, faded paint, and would constantly be about 30 days away from complete bankruptcy.

He would not get paid for referring a client to another lawyer because federal, state and local laws prohibit such kickbacks.

Charity work he provides for the indigent would not be tax deductible.

The public would blame him for the high cost of justice, the high cost of jails, the high cost of police, the high cost of handcuffs etc etc even though he has nothing to do with any of those things.

He would not be able to advertise his rates, compare his rates with his peers, or collectively negotiate with other lawyers for better rates.



If Your Doctor Had To Work Like A Lawyer

His office would be shiek, pimped with bling and new everything.

Paperwork, chart dictations, phone calls?all done on ?island time?. He?s paid by the hour, so who can blame him?

Charity work your doctor provides to the indigent is written off come tax time.

You see your doctor on television all hours of the day and night. ?Have you been feeling ill? Call me at the 800-SICK-LINE?.

Your neighbor?s doctor hires William Shatner as his spokesperson and runs several versions of Shatner?s ad on TV everyday and night.

Your doctor would pay ?runners? to drum up business by finding people with a cough, rash, or headache. When the runners bring the patients to your doctor?s office for treatment they would get paid a finder?s fee.

If your primary care doctor diagnosed a life threatening surgical problem then they would get a referral fee from the surgeon they refer you to for treatment.

If that surgeon in turn saves your life then they would be entitled to 30% of your net income for the rest of your life.

If your doctor got stuck in traffic on the way to morning rounds at the hospital he would relax and sip his latte slowly because he?s already on the clock.

When you got sick you would go to a doctor and have to put down a $1500 retainer and sign an open ended billing agreement for $400 an hour, even for something that seemed relatively minor.

When you got the bill from the doctor for your sore throat the doctor would have charged you $300 for ?research? to find out if penicillin would be effective for your strep throat--even though you suspect the doctor had treated strep throat before and should have known this already.

If you had to call your doctor back because the antibiotic gave you the hot trots then the phone call would be billed to you at a ?fractional hour? rate, or in other words, $175.

If you tried to complain to Congress about these billing practices nothing would happen because the President and most of Congress are doctors themselves.

PS- see rest of this post at:
http://romanticsingles.com/ForumThreadDetails.aspx?tid=56

I (and most doctors) know exactly what is needed to fix this mess but the solution will not rest well with big lobbyists or big political donors. More to follow on my website.

Respectfully Submitted by ?Mike?, Admin of www.RomanticSingles.com

[m521212]

Surely people must realize how many of our FREEDOMS have already been
taken from us for instance in our state they dictate to restuarant
owners about smoking I say if you don't like the smoke just don't go there. How to raise your children I don't believe in abuse but the children today are out of hand and we now have parent abuse and the children have no respect for law, parents, teachers, church or private property. No prayer or Bible in school but the Muslims can get time off to pray something is rotten in our country today. Everything is in English & Spanish and press 1 for English is next to rediculious how come the golf players from all over the world can learn to speak English but the Latino's do not have to speak English. Ane this big hoopla about Health Ins reform I know for a fact the poorest people are well covered with all kinds of mediacal care dental and eye care and most of the middle class of which I am in the lower half don't want to give up their I-pods, their latest in Tv including all the HBO and movie channels their cigarettes and their booze for the priority of being covered by Health Insurance they have some of the latest cars (by the way mine is 21 years old) the best houses and all the latest fashions and that is where their priorties lay. If they would get a little less greedy they could afford some of the Health insurance out there.

[mag221]

The problem with factcheck.org is that they read the bills for exact verbiage and don't think through the consequences of particular legislation. Just because a bill doesn't spell something out doesn't mean its impact isn't factual. Check out http://www.honestquestions.com/health-care-reform -- I think they've done an interesting job of making some real-world inferences, even if I don't agree with everything there.

[mjballard]

OK, CBS is no longer a news network. The complete biased reporting of the health care debate, like all other major networks is an excuse not to report the news, in interest of surviving the Obama administration. We need real reporting not what we receive from this compromised network.

The facts are as follows for any reasonable person capable of listening concerning Obama's speach. Please understand that all government programs have ignored costs and have been a complete disaster. If you can name a single success please speak up, there are none. All ignore costs and have crippled this country for the long term.

I have listened to President Obama's speech and have a few comments for you to consider in your support for Health Care Reform. Reform is needed, but we need to take real action to produce real results and not just force this down everyone's throat.

Positives:

1. Torte Reform Is desperately Needed.. Please insure that real Torte Reform is included in any reform passed.



2. Free Market Competition is desperately Needed. Existing Mandates and regulations limit this including not allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines.



3. Market baskets for individuals and small business to pool buying power is a great idea. Not sure why we need legislation to make this happen, but if so,so be it.



4. Eliminate unfair practices by Insurance companies for dropping coverage is good, but please understand additional mandates and regulations will increase costs. Let's make sure the mandates truly produce value.



5. Eliminate waste. Waste is already present in the Medicare system and is estimated at 10% of the cost of medicare. Any reform should address the fraud in the Medicare system run by the Government.



Negatives



1. We need honesty concerning the public option. The government will subsidize this and demand that providers honor the insurance. The private sector will be forced to pick up the costs and consequently, prices will sky-rocket. This is not a guess, this is currently what is happening with medicare and other states providing public options. It is a fact. The public option in the end will be the only option. If that is what we want fine, but please let us be honest in the debate. To make the claim that it will increase competition is not true. The government is not bound by the same rules of free market competion and has no place in the market place.



My view this will be less efficient, cost more, and in the end result in less effective and more expensive costs for everyone. Availability, quality, and yes rationing is a given as it is in every other socialized medical country in the World.



2. Let us be honest about the Un-insured, yes it is rising, however, the 47 million number is mis-represented. From the source that gave us the number, they readily admit that approximately 10 million are illegals, 14million can afford insurance and choose not to, and another 8 million already qualify for programs, but don't enroll as they probably don't need the services. Please let the reform truly adress those in need and stop mis-represenations with the 47 Million American Uninsured Number. Any speech that starts out with this statement can not be trusted as it is either mis-informed, misleading, or an outright lie.



3. To pattern a public option off of medicare is not only a bad idea, it is completely irresponsible. Medicare is untold Trillions in Debt and the only reason people say it is a good program is that they completely ignore costs. The President is correct that Medicare is bankrupting this country, however at the same time he claims it can be expanded to cover everyone and won't increase the deficit. This makes no sense.

[whatsreallyup]

What's really behind all bs about health care? I think people are sometimes so stupid and blind sided by special interest that they can't smell the coffee. The government has always been apart of health care. There are a lot of companies out there that don't cover health care, retires are losing are will have to pay for their health care. I know people who can't afford health coverage for their family. wake up people, you can't always trust the government, but never trust big business. The bottom line is that your insurance company will drop you like a hot potatoes when you really get sick and are costing them to much money. The only things the insurance companies have done over the years is try to regulate how not pay your bills. In the end we will still need government assistance (medicaid or medicare) because your insurance drop your coverage when you turned 62. We need health care re-form.

[afell]

The health insurance and health care industry has circled their wagons. Right now, health care in this country is a huge cash cow. From pharmaceuticals to hospitals to health insurance companies all the way down to private practitioners, they all stand to take a huge cut in pay as soon as real reform happens. But not doing anything will mean the average American citizen will end up on public health insurance rolls anyway, or we will be paying for their health care in the most expensive way possible (in the emergency room).

The more I look at the whole system and how it mistreats the average patient, the more I think we need to turn the whole system on its ear and push for a single-payer plan and break away from the current fee-for-service nightmare that health care has become in this nation, and I tend to be on the right-wing conservative end of most economic issues. Access to good health care should be a right in this country, not a privilege that is reserved for the select few who can afford it.

We can try and rely on the blind hand of commerce to correct the issues in the system, but at current, this system is broken. There are too many documented instances where abuse of the system has occurred, such as insurance companies refusing to cover their clients, even to the point of finding any reason to remove their coverage as soon as an expensive diagnosis comes to light. Yet who is holding their feet to the fire to do the right thing?

I personally have seen how much health providers pad their bills to try and get as much as possible. And it isn't entirely their fault, as they often have to write off treatment of uninsured patients who have no means to pay. But having recently gone through an emergency procedure after a car accident and seeing the paperwork that would normally go to an insurance company (my health insurance denied coverage due to it being an auto accident, and the other motorist was uninsured). Instead, I had to deal with my lawyer, who went through all the medical bills with a fine-tooth comb and was able to reduce the bills by nearly 60%.

If we see tort reform for malpractice lawsuits, do we expect to see a subsequent reduction in health care costs? Most likely not, as this will probably be rolled into the profit for the health care provider instead of being passed to the client. And I personally don't want to see tort reform unless we also see a true licensure system that actually has the teeth to remove bad health care workers from being able to practice. Let's break this Thin White Line that the AMA and ADA have established which allows bad doctors to continue giving bad medicine.

Eventually, this country needs to look at health care workers in much the same light as we currently view police or fire/emergency workers. When you have someone breaking into your house downstairs, you don't want to have to give your insurance information over the phone when you call 911 before they even bother to send out a police car. What if your house is on fire, and the fire truck is there, but they refuse to hook up and put out the fire until you can prove that you have adequate insurance. So why should we have to do this with health care?

[amarajo]

Polls seem to tell us that Canadians are much happier with their system than Americans are with ours. But that seems to be only in theory. When Canadians (all of whom are ?insured? by their single-payer system) are compared to insured and uninsured Americans, it turns out that insured Americans are much happier with their own personal health care than Canadians, and uninsured Americans are only slightly less happy with their care than Canadians. For example:

- 55% of insured Americans are VERY satisfied with their ability to get a doctor?s appt. when they want one, compared to 33% of Canadians, which is barely better than how uninsured Americans (30% very satisfied) feel on that question.
- 50% of insured Americans are VERY satisfied with their ability to see top-quality specialists if they need one, compared to only 17% of Canadians, again barely better than uninsured Americans at 14%.
- 55% of insured Americans are VERY satisfied with their ability to get emergency medical care, compared to 26% of Canadians and 20% of uninsured Americans.
- 42% of insured Americans are VERY satisfied with their ability to get the latest, most sophisticated medical treatments, compared to 16% of Canadians and 11% of uninsured Americans.

The above data come from a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation with ABC News and USA Today in late 2006, on Americans? satisfaction with their own health care, and a second study by the Institute for Policy Innovation and Harris Polling in early 2008, designed to mirror the Kaiser one, on Canadians? satisfaction with their own health care.

Canadians do poll as being more satisfied with their health care "system" as opposed to their own personal health care, but then, Canadian politicians have no incentive to disparage their system since they control it, while Democrats in the U.S., who want to seize control over that huge sector of our economy, have every incentive to exaggerate the flaws of ours.

Personally, I would prefer to be happy with my own personal health care (which I am) than about the theoretical qualities of "the system." YMMV.

[restrictedtobcbs]

I don't know what all of the fuss is about within the GOP. Nothing is gained without being tested first. If the test fails, it's back to the drawing board. Is the GOP afraid that the test will pass and they will be proven wrong? Aren't they aware that if the proposed healthcare reform is a flop they stand to gain many seats in the coming elections? Or Not!!!!

[wildhorseind]

Reduce Health Care Costs by 80% While Improving Care

1)Open up Med Schools,
2)Distribute More Responsibility to Nurses and PAs,
3)and Pay Doctors by Salary Only

Completely missing from the healthcare debate is the substandard performance on the part of doctors driving costs to unsustainable levels. Firsthand horrific experiences aside, this profession has no real oversight from those they ?serve? and often arrogantly dismissive of patient input. But patients are not only disallowed from having input into their own health care and health maintenance, but are scoffed at when the topic of internet research is raised.

Doctors are not gods. They?re highly fallible humans who too often prescribe pills to placate symptoms rather than provide intelligent diagnoses for permanent cures and are either ill trained, or too focused on pay while stacking long lines in waiting rooms.

More nurses and Physician?s Assistants, more responsibility for those folks will solve a multitude of horrendous problems that Doctors are creating. Stop allowing greedy Doctors to stuff patients into waiting rooms, pay them by salary only. And open up Med Schools to supply the industry with more physicians.

[shertennessee]

Where to start? Thank you CBS for calming all of my crazy fears. You guys seem to be doing your own research. It's not like you are just repeating the same talking points coming from Washington. I mean this is 2009...we have spell check and GPS. Why would anyone want to use fact and reason to draw their own conclusions. I would love to believe all the feel good nonsense about how we'll all be taken care of with this new "reform" but how so many people refuse to admit what is painfully obvious makes me crazy. Congress wants no part of this "public option". Obama says this isn't about him, it's about us. I have insurance that I work to pay for. I am okay with that. Nothing worth having ever came cheap in my experience. I do not have a lot of money but I do have priorities. Costs are too high but no one wants to talk about the lawyers that line their pockets with others hard earned money. It makes me sick. Doctors actually do something good in this world. Those lawyers are parasites and how many of them go on to become politicians? I have heard our president try to put doubt into people about where a doctor's ethics are... that they may be trying to make extra money cutting up children. Of course we should question the doctors. Politicians and lawyers and liberal media can always be trusted. You do not have to go into the details of the plan. That is enough...right there. Of course they will not take away our right to choose...we can keep our insurance we currently have...yes, until the government puts them out of business. And if you can't figure out how that would happen you are too lost for reason anyway. There is a reason we have private schools etc. All the "free" junk that the government "gives" us is just that. Junk. So we will all be paying higher taxes for something that isn't as good. Those among us with more money will pay more and still get the care they need. Middle class will get screwed as usual. Do you think doctors will continue to practice for whatever random amount the government believes they should be paid for services? They make up for what they lose on Medicaid and Medicare patients by charging more to private pay etc. I know doctors who say this is a disaster in the making. Our president questions their judgment? And for all of you that want to talk about so many other countries having better care... I think you may have read that somewhere but you must not have put any thought into it. I guess all the rich people from other countries come here for health care because they want to live dangerously. I personally think we should all just go work for the government...maybe I'll call the pres and ask to be his "Common Sense" Czar. They seem to have a never ending supply of jobs and money and they've got great benefits.

[TheManTheMyth]

Look on the CDC website http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ They have a section called FastStats. Look at the 6 items listed immediately. Asthma, Cholesterol, Diabetes, Hypertension, and Obeseity. These are the prelevant problems in the United States today. All of which can be directly caused by being overweight, and overcome by losing weight. But, if the US of A got fit, who would lose the most money?

Pfizer ranked number 1 in 2008. 43 billion in Sales. Pfizer makes Lipitor (Cholesterol lowering) and Viagra (Erectile Dysfunction). I wont get in to the gory details of how ED is related to high blood pressure, and obeseity. Aetna, the largest Health Insurance company, 31 billion revenue. Aetna, by the way, is in bed with a little institution called J.P. Morgan. But I wont digress into conspiracy theories on this post. You are probably wondering how the FDA is involved. Well, in order to sell medicine, you have to get FDA approval. The FDA is a government agency, dedicated to keeping the U.S. citizens safe from witch doctors, and snake oil. Did you know, Vitamins are not approved by the FDA? I digress.

The government is not interested in keeping America healthy. Obama can say he is, but really, what the reform is about, is how to capitalize off Americans, before they die. Think of health care as a life tax. If they can keep you alive, longer, they get more money in the end. There is no money in people not seeing the doctors. They get money in sickness. Of the top pharmecuetical companies, drugs related to complications of obeseity, including mental illnesses like depression, and anxiety, top the charts for revenue. The only problem they are facing in Washington on health care, is how to keep you coming back to the doctor.

Case in Point: If they were truly interested in keeping you healthy, a health care plan would include a gym membership(and a personal trainer), cover surgeries like LapBand, and cover healthy foods, and supplements, like vitamins, and minerals. As it stands now, everything that can help you, is an expense out of pocket. Because "Health Care" only covers billion dollar businesses. If companies like Pfizer and Aetna do not make any money, niether does the FDA. And in the full circle of things, the elected government officials who are privy to buying stock in pharmeceutical companies before the public knows about "new drugs" also would lose money. (And lets not get in to McDonalds 23 billion )

To reform Health Care, it needs to be taken away from the "business" side of things, and make it about health.

Now to the poor. There is no money to be made off the poor unless the government can convince its wealthy to subsidize. How do we do that? We take money from those who can afford it, and funnel it into avenues that make money. Health care for everyone! Why? Because when everyone goes to the doctor, the doctors get kick backs from pharmeceutical companies for prescribing certain drugs, the FDA gets kickbacks from the pharmeceuticals for approving new drugs (and not approving alternative health solutions), the government gets kick backs from the FDA, and everyone makes out nicely in the end. The sick stay sick, the rich stay rich, and all they had to do was borrow money from the rich, to make the rich richer. Who stays sick? The poor. Because they cant afford to stay healthy. Invest in the sick to get rich.

For thousands of years, we did just fine with out antianxiety, antidepression, cholesterol, hypertension, diabetic, and obeseity medicines. And now we are programmed that we can't live healthy lives with out these. Change health care to include alternate care, if we choose to do so. Take the FDA out of the equation. They aren't helping anyone, the are only regulating choice. They approve drugs that knowingly cause death and liver failure, but they wont take it off the market. And they wont approve stuff like vitamins. I mean seriously. Get out of the doctors pockets, and stop offering "bonus" programs for prescribing "certain" drugs over the others. Get back into doing what is best for the patient. Sure there isn't a lot of money in it, but, really only 3% of America makes any money off it. I don't see any revenue, so what do I care? I want my health to be my doctors priority.

If the government was really concerned about our health, then there wouldn't be just one option. Because each person is unique. Provide health care for those who want to be healthy. But provide healthy options, not necessarily profitable options. Of the 3 companies listed, 97 Billion Dollars was made in 2008 off of the unhealthy. Thats just 3 companies. We can't afford to be healthy, because big business would lose out. It is about choices. If you gave someone every tool they would need to lead a healthy life, they would be healthy, if they wanted to. (See Biggest Loser) But you have to give them the tools, even if they can't afford it. Thats health care.

We are not stock options. We are people.

[woeisme1]

You would think that thr republican extremists would at least listen to factcheck but no. Clearly the republican extremists won't. No matter what anyone says, they are determined to find fault or refute it outright with some of the most vile, outlandish lies.

I think all politicians should be held accountable for what they say to the American people. Palin, Gingrich, Grassley and so many many republican fanatics have done a major dis-service to little old ladies, veterans and americans in general.

They should be expelled from Congress or the Senate if they get caught lying like this. It's such an ugly travesty and so damaging to those who are terrified by the blatant lies. It's clear the republicans have no desire for reform. They are in the pockets of big insurance.

I say if the republican party continues, ban them from the country and re-label them as what they have become, a domestic terrorist organization. Thats what they are acting like.

[sanserve]

Health Care Reform or Welfare Program--- Who Pays the Bill?

The White House has released another of its health care reform clarification emails--- there will be more. It seems strange to me that the focus is on insurance coverage rather than on the spiraling costs of health care itself.

Frankly, the drafters of the insurance reforms have little, if any, understanding of insurance, risk assessment, or underwriting--- and nary a clue about running a business. But why should they care? This is Robin Hood politics, not business.

Incidentally, I am not a health insurance salesman or healthcare professional--- just a payer of far too much in small-group insurance premiums in spite of a crazy-high deductible!

Insurance is neither a cost of obtaining healthcare services nor an expense associated with those services. Insurance is an agreement in which a private company agrees to pay part of someone else's medical expenses in exchange for premiums it collects in advance from all of its insureds.

If President Obama owned an insurance company, he would not be willing to insure an applicant with brain cancer nor would he be willing to pay an unlimited lifetime benefit to all insureds--- not without a premium that reflects the risks to his personal bank account.

Theoretically, insurance companies collect enough in premiums to operate profitably while paying all the claims they have agreed to pay under contracts with the individuals and groups that they insure. If we add more risk, the company has no choice but to increase premiums.

The persons who own the insurance companies (you and me, pal) expect them to operate profitably. The companies employ thousands of actuaries, healthcare industry expense analysts, claims adjusters, fraud inspectors, service personnel, underwriters, risk assessors, etc. to assure that this happens.

Insurance companies protect us by standing ready to pay "covered" expenses over and above whatever deductions, exclusions, and limitations are agreed upon in advance.

Insurance companies determine who is insurable, and at what premium. Their job is to pay covered medical expenses--- and they have a vested interest in keeping medical expenses as low as possible. But do they really?

Just as the financial crisis was caused by business conflicts of interest so too are there conflicting interests in the insurance-healthcare-drug-medical supply industries.

We can control the industry to eliminate the conflicts of interest. We can police the boardrooms of insurance companies to eliminate "abuse of shareholders" through excessive salary packages.

Perhaps we should require health care insurers to be "mutual" companies. Maybe the annual deductible could be dealt with differently without increasing premiums.

We can tax for-profit hospitals higher to encourage more non-profit care facilities; we can keep doctors, insurance and drug companies from owning hospitals; we can cap jury awards for medical malpractice, and we can give tax relief to medical practitioners who provide free health services to the indigent and uninsurable.

But the government's efforts to redefine insurance are counter-productive. As cold as it may sound, if we make insurance companies cover pre-existing brain tumors, the expense is coming out of your pocket in the form of higher insurance premiums or higher taxes.

The White House list of reforms would increase insurance company costs and our premiums while doing nothing to reduce the price of the medical services we receive.

Insurance is designed to pay the bills--- reforms need to make the bills smaller for everyone. Does this plan cut any costs?

Group health (and even dental) insurance is a benefit used by many employers to attract and retain employees. I've heard rumors that the reform plan will tax employers who don't provide insurance and tax those employees who receive the benefits. Neither approach helps the economy or reduces health care expenses--- both raise taxes for everyone.

Insurance can only be made more affordable by reducing the costs of healthcare. Let's focus on streamlined record keeping, controlling ambulance chasers, jury awards, an army of lobbyists, and industry conflicts of interest.

We should also make all government employees, from the top down, dance to the same tune as the rest of us--- that'll do away with the tax on benefits.

Steve Selengut
http://www.sancoservices.com
Professional Portfolio Management since 1979
Author of: "The Brainwashing of the American Investor: The Book that Wall Street Does Not Want YOU to Read", and "A Millionaire's Secret Investment Strategy"

[scorrao01]

The most absorb myth is that someone (Democrat or Republican) could think that we could get together as Nation and find a way to solve the problem. We have to do something.... and all of this mud throwing is not getting us any closer to allowing ALL of us have the same rights to health care. We talk about plans limiting our health care options, what about all the people who have no options at all. Wait until you watch someone you love die just because they cannot afford basic medical treatments.

[megmerma]

Now we just need to debunk propaganda from the crazies:

TAXES WILL BE WAY MORE THAN PREMIUMS (Yeah, right. Only if you have your own personal sailing yacht and laundromat chain.)

HEALTH CARE LINES WILL GET LONG (Oh, yes, the 3 hour emergency-room wait we have now is fantastic.)

DOCTORS WON'T GET PAID (The ones who are worth it support the bill)

AMERICAN HEALTH CARE WILL NO LONGER LEAD THE WORLD (It no longer does)