CNN's Roberts allows McCaughey to spread falsehoods about health care bill
SUMMARY: John Roberts did not challenge Betsy McCaughey's assertion that the Affordable Health Choices Act "basically" "pushes everyone into an HMO-style plan."
On June 24, CNN's American Morning co-host John Roberts did not challenge former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey's assertions that the Affordable Health Choices Act "basically" "pushes everyone into an HMO-style plan" and that most Americans will have to "go through what they call a 'medical home,' which is this decade's term for an HMO gatekeeper." However, under the proposed legislation, individuals already enrolled in a health care plan or receiving health insurance coverage are able to keep their coverage and are not "pushed" into "an HMO-style plan."
McCaughey later stated that "most Americans will have no options. When they file their taxes, they're going to have to staple a proof, like a W-2, that they've enrolled in one of these qualified health plans, with the limits of choice: limits of choices of doctors, limits of choices of when you can see a specialist, when you can have a diagnostic test." In fact, individuals do not have to enroll in "qualified health plans." Indeed, the legislation contains a provision explicitly stating that "[n]o individual shall be compelled to enroll in a qualified health plan or to participate in a Gateway." In the bill, "qualified health plans" are plans that must meet certain criteria in order to be offered under a "Gateway." A gateway is defined as a state-run mechanism that "facilitates the purchase of health insurance coverage and related insurance products through the Gateway at an affordable price by qualified individuals and qualified employer groups."
From the bill:
''(1) VOLUNTARY NATURE OF GATEWAY. --
''(A) CHOICE TO ENROLL OR NOT TO ENROLL. -- A qualified individual shall have the choice to enroll or not to enroll in a qualified health plan or to participate in a Gateway.
''(B) PROHIBITION ON COMPELLED ENROLLMENT. -- No individual shall be compelled to enroll in a qualified health plan or to participate in a Gateway.
While the bill says that those who are not enrolled in "qualifying coverage" "for any month during the taxable year" may be fined as mandated by Subtitle D, the "Shared Responsibility for Health Care," the definition of "qualifying coverage" does not say that the plan a consumer is enrolled in must be a "qualified plan" -- it simply includes that as an option -- and the definition does not say it must be an HMO or have a "medical home." "Qualifying coverage" can be one's existing coverage. The office of Senate HELP Committee chairman Edward M. Kennedy has said that an "important foundation" of the bill is the principle that "[i]f you like the coverage you have now, you keep it. But if you don't have health insurance or don't like the insurance you have, our bill will give you new, more affordable options."
According to the bill:
(6) QUALIFYING COVERAGE. -- The term 'qualifying coverage' means --
(A) a group health plan or health insurance coverage --
(i) that an individual is enrolled in on the date of enactment of this title; or
(ii) that is described in clause (i) and that is renewed by an enrollee;
(B) a group health plan or health insurance coverage that --
(i) is not described in subparagraph (A); and
(ii) meets or exceeds the criteria for minimum qualifying coverage (as defined in subsection (d));
(C) Medicare coverage under parts A and B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act or under part C of such title;
(D) Medicaid coverage under a State plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act (or under a waiver under section 1115 of such Act), other than coverage consisting solely of benefits under section 1928 of such Act;
(E) coverage under title XXI of the Social Security Act;
(F) coverage under the TRICARE program under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code;
(G) coverage under the veteran's health care program under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, but only if the coverage for the individual involved is determined by the Secretary to be not less than the coverage provided under a qualified health plan, based on the individual's priority for services as provided under section 1705(a) of such title;
(H) coverage under the Federal employees health benefits program under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code; (I) a State health benefits high risk pool;
(I) a State health benefits high risk pool;
(J) a health benefit plan under section 2504(e) of title 22, United States Code; or
(K) coverage under a qualified health plan.
From the June 24 edition of CNN's American Morning:
ROBERTS: Meantime, to another one of the president's priorities: health care. So, what's another trillion dollars? President Obama standing firm on the public option for health care, in spite of that possible price tag, which is a staggering one, but private health insurance groups say they do not like the idea of competing with the government.
Former New York Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey is a long-time expert in public health and is currently the chairwoman of an advocacy group for patients' safety. And she joins us this morning. Good morning to you. How are you?
McCAUGHEY: Good to be with you.
ROBERTS: So, we should point out that you were opposed to the Clinton health care plan back in 1993. You are opposed to a public option this time around. Are you just opposed to the government getting involved in providing health insurance for people?
McCAUGHEY: No, I've read the Kennedy bill through three times, and I'm worried because I'm a patient advocate -- I spend the first 80 hours of the week preventing hospital infections -- and this bill will mean fewer choices for patients. Basically, the bill pushes everyone into an HMO-style plan, with restrictions on your access to specialists and diagnostic tests. You'll have to go through what they call a "medical home," which is this decade's term for an HMO gatekeeper.
Doctors will be paid based on incentives to reduce care and save money, rather than being paid every time you get a service or you visit the doctor. The one outrage of this bill, more than any other, is that members of Congress exempt themselves from this limit on choices. They're members of a federal health plan, with many, many choices: fee-for-service plans, high-deductible plans, as well as HMOs, and plans with many more choices of doctors.
ROBERTS: There is a clause in there that says that federal employees are not eligible. I've got it right here. But they are just one of a number of groups that aren't eligible, and --
McCAUGHEY: Not eligible -- they're not being pushed into this. Otherwise, most Americans will be -- will have no option --
ROBERTS: It says here: "not eligible for coverage" --
McCAUGHEY: That's right -- page 114. But most Americans will have no options. When they file their taxes, they're going to have to staple a proof, like a W-2, that they've enrolled in one of these qualified health plans, with the limits of choice: limits of choices of doctors, limits of choices of when you can see a specialist, when you can have a diagnostic test.
And for seriously ill people, this just isn't good enough. If it were good enough, members of Congress would agree to it as well.
ROBERTS: Well, as I said, the bill is written here. It just says that these people are not eligible, as opposed to saying, "Hey, we're going to give you access." It would suggest you've already got -- you've --
McCAUGHEY: This isn't a question of choice.
ROBERTS: You've already got --
McCAUGHEY: You have to do it. If you don't do it, on page 104, there is a hefty penalty.
ROBERTS: But this would suggest that federal employees already have health care; they don't need this system.
McCAUGHEY: But other Americans who already have health care still have to do this. Let me make that clear: This is not optional. It's also a serious problem for people who are seriously ill, because the government has said they're going to slow the flow of dollars into the health care system. That's going to mean cuts in hospital budgets, fewer nurses spread even thinner, fewer diagnostic tests, so it means longer waits for treatment.
ROBERTS: Do you think that a health care plan is even going to see the light of day? There seems to have been a strategic blunder made in sending out this bill to the Congressional Budget Office for scoring -- it came back a trillion dollars over 10 years. Senator Dianne Feinstein [D-CA] said we don't know if we've got the votes to pass this.















Then what are we to do? That is why the absolute worst case scenario regarding costs should be put forth in debate, but it never is, because politicians aren't wired that way. This is way too big and way too important to treat it like a highway bond that needs more money. If I could that guarantee from lawmakers, then I'll listen.
Again, if you can't pay your workers a decent wage, you obviously can't run a business.
You are a piece of work.
Only the conservative ones.
I have a disdain for people in general who tell the destitute, the sick, the disable, the old, etc. that they're own their own. A lot of people saying it (mostly conservatives) are not wealthy at all.
Sorry, but I have no sympathy for somebody whose garage is bigger than my house.
Reagan lowered the tax rate and we went into a bad recession and he had to raise taxes every year after that. Bush lowered the tax rate and now we're close to a depression.
Cutting taxes on the poor and middle-class goes back into the economy because these people live check-to-check and thus spend almost all that they earn. The same isn't true for rich folks. It's been shown that they take the money and stick into savings accounts, or build a new plant overseas. Rarely does it go back into the American economy.
Voodoo economics has long-ago been discredited. I can't believe there are people that are still parroting its virtues. Wait, it's Tommy. OK. I guess it makes since. If anyone is an expert on carrying the flag for a dead and discredited cause with unprecedented obstinacy, it's Tommy.
Prove it. That is the fall back typical liberal line, it's baloney pure and simple. You get can your fellow posters here to buy that nonsense, but anyone with a brain won't. Nice try.
That is laughable. The money doesn't disappear if it is not taxed. It simply has not been confiscated by the government and remains in the hands of those that earned it. You must be confusing government revenue with creating wealth.
Government does not create wealth it only redistributes it. Private enterprise creates wealth.
"but the Reagan tax cuts DROPPED revenue for the next two years"
You really need to do your homework before you make idiotic comments like that.
"These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply", from 17.6% to 27.5%. That is total revenues collected by the govt.
"The real problem was a recession(1981-82) that neither CBO nor OMB could foresee. Even so, individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989. "
"The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993."
Here's the link, if you're interested;
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
Does anybody remember when Tommy used to pretend that he wasn't a righty, but really was someone in the middle? I guess his new moniker lays that lie to rest.
Really?
Boy, he must have been better at snowing people back then than he is now.
Spoken like a true liberal!
Keynesian economics have never worked, and it won't work this time. You can't spend your way out of a recession.
There has to be taxation somewhere between 0 and 100%. The argument consists of what is the right balance and who is most able to bear the burden. Clinton raised taxes on the rich and we had the biggest economic expansion in our history. You simply aren't credible.
The reason why we have so many government programs is due to massive wealth inequality in this country. If everyone was making a decent wage we wouldn't need gov't programs.
I am sure that if there was anyone in this country that worked for someone who wasn't "wealthy", they just had their jobs eliminated because of your sage advice. Nice work.
I live in NY and I would say a decent salary would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 to 60K.
I'm a unionize worker and the owners of the company where I work are millionaires while the workers get a decent wage and benefits. It's not hard to do.
Which would you prefer? Oh, he could take a pay cut to 50K, but that's only 30K savings. I guess considering what you said he just finds another profession and 25 people are out of work.
Great job there.
In a way, it did work out well. Detroit helped build the middle class in the 50s and 60s. Factory work in general gave millions of people a decent living in this country until manufacturers started farming out their work to slave laborers in other countries.
Pay any attention in Sunday school as a child? What kind of morals allow the thought contortions required to drive people into poverty based on your desire to avoid taxes?
In fact, Darth Cheney assured us that "Deficits don't matter".
What a difference an election makes.
No, the subject is actually how people react to deficit spending. Let me help you.
See, the Republicans had no problem with deficit spending when their rich buddies were getting tax cuts, and their idiot President was starting an unnecessary war. Now that a Democrat is proposing deficit spending to actually help people who really need it, the Republicans suddenly find deficit spending unacceptable.
Get it?
How are they equivalent?
right ON: No, you brought up Bush (again), saying his supporters shut up about Iraq so hah, hah, we all should do the same about health care. What's good for one is good for another.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're pretending to be this obtuse. Nerzog said nothing about people "shutting up" or "what's good for one is good for another". That's all your spin.
He's talking about how the Republican's reaction changed on deficit spending when a Democrat came into office and wanted to do something besides tax cuts and increase the military budget.
He is pretending to be this obtuse to stop us from discussing the subject at hand.
And way too many people let him lead them down that rathole.
So, did Tommy eventually stop being able to lead people down those ratholes - is that why he stopped using that screen name and became this sock puppet after he failed using JamesB?
Well, let's see the body count in Iraq (just our guys is...?) that may be one small problem I have with that.
If you've attended any funerals of our lost soldiers and talked to their widows even YOU might see a problem with the Iraq adventure.
Obama has not already increased the deficit to more than all other Presidents before him. That's just blatantly false, and something you made up.
Obama's deficits have not been turned in yet, as in, you won't know how much deficit he has, or has not run up, until he's out of office. Right now, there are projections. Some are good, some are bad, but you won't know until he's done his 2 terms as President.
Tax rates were much higher under Reagan, and yet, you guys LOVE him for being against taxes. Tax rates have gone down exponentially since the Reagan years, which is part of the reason we now have severe deficits.
We could always cut way back on defense, that would make health care more affordable.
If people are allowed to pay for this plan out of their taxes, or if I need to pay a little more to ensure that everyone in this country has decent care, I'm for it.
Think what that could do for small businesses. Right now, they have trouble attracting workers because they can't afford to buy insurance.
We would also free up the money being used to pay for health insurance marketing, salaries and bonuses for insurance execs and the like which I've seen estimated to consume up to 30% of health-care dollars.