10 Health Care Reform Myths
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.
5160169In 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.
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. 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.
"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
(AP)
"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.
5160169In 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.
- no previous page
- next
1/2
Popular in Politics
- Obama prom pictures surface 82 Comments
- Obama: America at a "crossroads" in fighting terrorism 88 Comments
- IRS official Lois Lerner placed on leave
- Protester heckles Obama during counterterrorism speech Play Video
- Drones, Gitmo part of broad Obama counterterrorism speech
- Lawmakers push to punish sexual offenders in the military
- Boehner calls out Obama administration's "arrogance of power" 90 Comments
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong"
Repr.Paul Ryan that Medicare debt is $38 Trillion, $260,000per taxpayer. If we double our taxes at the current rate of $7,000/taxpayer, it would take us 38 years to pay for it. [142.3 Million Taxpayers in 2009].
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022504074.html http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politics/transcript-alan-greenspan/story?id=8743279) http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/10winbulindincretpre.pdf
If the US government doesn't devise a payment plan, lenders may demand more interest on the debt that in turn by the rule of 72 could make the debt too large to pay. Consequently, as Greenspan feared, the government would default on its debt causing hyperinflation; Hyperinflation will subsequently wipe out the savings of the middle class and cause widespread hunger on the people as it did in Germany in 1923, Brazil in the 1980s and Zimbabwe in the 2000s. Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation
Insurance companys have just jumped on the fear bandwagon because they can. But, clearly doing the right thing is not what is going to happen. Leadership isn't paid to think like that. So think about how much truth and ethic is involved when you find the cost of a bandaide $300 and a tylenol going for $50.
Most of us would hand them a nickel and tell them to keep the change...because there is at least 3 cents change from the actual cost of these two items....
Amp this up to operating room expences consulting dr calls....leads to your ingrown toenail removal could easily go for $50,000. Really folks how is it that these greedy buncha golfers are allowed to run the governing bodies of our country?
Some have been served well, this is not the point. The costs are just too much for average people to afford.
Canada is looking better and better all the time.
O?Bama would have to increase taxes 229% to pay for $12.7 Trillion in Welfare and National Health entitlements, $9,000/taxpayer per year. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/09/Obama-to-Spend-103-Trillion-on-Welfare-Uncovering-the-Full-Cost-of-Means-Tested-Welfare-or-Aid-to-the-Poor
They?re BORROWING it; hyperinflation = two to four years
www.DLW.zurvitahealth.biz
click on more info.
You gotta wonder!
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
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.