Santorum falsely claimed House bill "is very specific that private insurance would be ended"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Echoing an Investor's Business Daily editorial, former Sen. Rick Santorum falsely claimed on Fox & Friends Saturday that the House Democrats' Tri-Committee health care reform bill "is very specific that private insurance would be ended."
During the July 25 edition of Fox & Friends Saturday, former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), a Fox News contributor, falsely claimed that the House Democrats' Tri-Committee health care reform bill "is very specific that private insurance would be ended." Santorum added: "You have to go through this government system, which again mandates certain benefits to be covered." Santorum's claim echoes a July 15 editorial by Investor's Business Daily, which stated that the House health care reform bill includes "a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal" and that the "provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage." In fact, as former Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro said in response to Santorum, the bill does not say "you can't go into your private insurance."
As Media Matters for America has noted, the provision to which the IBD editorial referred establishes the conditions under which existing private plans would be exempted from the requirement that they participate in the Health Insurance Exchange. Individual health insurance plans that do not meet the "grandfather" conditions would still be available for purchase, but only through the Exchange and subject to those regulations.
In its editorial, Investor's Business Daily claimed:
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised -- with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
In fact, the paragraph in question states in context [emphasis added]:
SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.
(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED. -- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ''grandfathered health insurance coverage'' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 [2013] if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT. --
(A) IN GENERAL. -- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED. -- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
Sec. 102 subsection (c) states: "Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan."
According to the House Ways and Means Committee's summary of the bill, the Health Insurance Exchange "creates a transparent and functional marketplace for individuals and small employers to comparison shop among private and public insurers."
From the July 25 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
CLAYTON MORRIS (co-host): Let's bring the senator back in. You know, the president says that your coverage wouldn't change. You would have the choice here.
SANTORUM: That's --
MORRIS: Do you agree or disagree?
SANTORUM: That's a lie. I mean, it's an outright lie. The fact -- the House bill is very specific that private insurance would be ended. You have to go through this government system, which again mandates certain benefits to be covered. The bottom line is, Gerry, that cancer survival rates in America are the highest in the world.
FERRARO: OK. Wait --
SANTORUM: The places that have socialized medicine are lower.
FERRARO: Let me just tell you what I'm holding up.
MORRIS: What are you holding up there?
FERRARO: What I'm holding up here -- these are the comparison of Senate and House health care reform bills. And, actually, it gets changed -- it has been changed since -- this was started June 9, it was changed again --
ALISYN CAMEROTA (co-host): OK, but what about --
FERRARO: -- later on, so it keeps on going on.
CAMEROTA: But what I said about private insurance --
FERRARO: None of these people say that you can't get -- you can't go into your private insurance. Every single one of them provides -- every single one of these bills that the Democrats have put in have provided.
Ferraro actually had the language in the bill but of course the format of the show doesn't allow her to have enough time to read it.
6 (1) IN GENERAL.—The purpose of this division
7 is to provide affordable, quality health care for all
8 Americans and reduce the growth in health care
9 spending.10 (2) BUILDING ON CURRENT SYSTEM.—This di11
vision achieves this purpose by building on what
1 works in today’s health care system, while repairing
2 the aspects that are broken.
3 (3) INSURANCE REFORMS.—This division—
4 (A) enacts strong insurance market re5
forms;
6 (B) creates a new Health Insurance Ex7
change, with a public health insurance option
8 alongside private plans;
9 (C) includes sliding scale affordability
10 credits; and
11 (D) initiates shared responsibility among
12 workers, employers, and the government;
13 so that all Americans have coverage of essential
14 health benefits.
15 (4) HEALTH DELIVERY REFORM.—This division
16 institutes health delivery system reforms both to in17
crease quality and to reduce growth in health spend18
ing so that health care becomes more affordable for
19 businesses, families, and government.
20 (
Reduce the cost of health care spending, who you the individual or the government. Well, this bill would increse the cost for the government.
Sliding Scale, so who determines who pays on the sliding scale?
If I were a small business, why would I provide private health care? I would just tell them to sign up for the government plan, sure save me money.
So over time, why would any company provide paid health care, thin in return would run insurance companies out of business. So in a nut shell, yes this would get rid of private insurance.
Which side of your mouth will you be talking out of tomorrow? Because you're using up both sides of it now.
Secondly, this would leave us all covered by government health insurance, since everyone must have access to coverage. The result would be a single payer system which is what some 80% of Americans wanted in the first place! It was only the Democrats kowtowing to the minority party Republicans (for reasons still not clear to me; surely not the $1 million/day the insurance companies are spending) that kept single payer as being considered in the first place. Seems like a win-win to me.
The federal government will drive private business out not by being a better product, but by using unfair practices. Can the private businesses create legislation to outlaw public options? Can private business limit competition? Can private business print more money to continue inefficient processes?
While you may not cry for the CEO of the insurance companies, maybe you should think about all the people that work for them. Would you shed a tear for them? Oooohhh, Sorry. Its just the evil CEO who would be impacted, right?
And where in the world did you read that 80% want single payer system? I've never seen that. What I have seen is that the US population is 300 million, with only 47 million un-insured. Of those, 22 million have the ability to pay (make over $45,000 annually), but choose not to. So, the progressives are proposing a $1.5 TRILLION plan to cover the 25 million, many of which ALREADY qualify for Medicaid. Smart.
Government run healtcare. Government run auto manufacturing. Government run banks. Government run financial sector. This is socialism.
Help me understand...do you want socialism?
Just like Social Security has dried up private retirement investing? Unfair practices like eliminating profit, and outrageous executive salaries?
"Can the private businesses create legislation to outlaw public options? Can private business limit competition? Can private business print more money to continue inefficient processes?"
Yes, yes, and no. Most regions of the U.S. are primarily served (>50%) by one giant health conglomerate. Your 'competition' argument is pure blue sky for the majority of Americans.
"While you may not cry for the CEO of the insurance companies, maybe you should think about all the people that work for them. Would you shed a tear for them? Oooohhh, Sorry. Its just the evil CEO who would be impacted, right?"
I realize that many white collar jobs in India may be lost during this health coverage reorganization, but to answer your question, no, I will not shed a tear for them. Or, were you unaware that most of these phone/computer jobs had been sent overseas already?
"And where in the world did you read that 80% want single payer system?"
Hey, fair enough! I overstated the support. Turns out, only two thirds of Americans want it, including the majority of physicians. Still want to stand in the way? By the way, your $1.5 trillion estimate is also overblown. Try $250 billion over the next ten years, which we can easily trim from the defense budget.
Here are the polls:
http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html
"Government run healtcare. Government run auto manufacturing. Government run banks. Government run financial sector. This is socialism."
Yes, it is socialism. It is also NOT what is happening in this country. Does the Fed own the majority of GM? Yes. Ford? No. Chrysler? No. So, the government doesn't really run the auto industry, does it? Does the Fed own a couple of banks? No, though banks have received bailout money. Of all the banks in your hometown, I'm willing to bet you a beer that the federal government owns exactly NONE of them. We are not a socialist nation, and public option health care will not make us one.
I'm not aware of how private business can create legislation, unless you refer to the MANY lobbyists, which are a horrible bane to the republic. But, the companies themselves cannot make legislation, nor can lobbyists assure positive favor.
As for business limiting competition...I fear we will not agree on this. Given a level playing field, private industry can compete to increase effeciency and reduce costs. If one company goes out of business, it is most likely due to the other company lowering costs to the consumer with an equal or better product. Consumer wins.
I am aware that SOME jobs have been outsourced to other countries. Why...too expensive to keep here due to federal regulations (like the upcoming mandated healthcare!!). But, it is a small portion of the overall company. According to the US Bureau of Labor, the total number of employees in Insurance companines as of June 2009 is 2.266 MILLION. That's a pretty good chunk to not shed a tear...
I agree that we are not CURRENTLY a socialist nation, but this president is moving as fast as possible to that end. Yes, the federal government may not control the small banks around me...they simply let them fail (64 failed banks so far this year). But, they do own the largest, with the most power (Citi, Fannie, Freddie), and have leverage over others (Goldmans, BoA, etc...).
Do you believe in socialism? Or, do you believe (as our founding fathers did) in individual rights?
Two thoughts here. The very mention of IRAs proves my point, which was that public option retirement (Social Security) did not end private retirement business (IRAs). Second, if it does not provide enough income, imagine how much worse things would be if it had been allowed to put some of it's holdings into public accounts, like the stock market? Or, with Bernie Madhoff, perhaps?
"I'm not aware of how private business can create legislation, unless you refer to the MANY lobbyists, which are a horrible bane to the republic. But, the companies themselves cannot make legislation, nor can lobbyists assure positive favor."
Exactly. The insurance industry is pumping $1 million a day into Washington to end the public option. Why? Civic mindedness? No one is fool enough to believe that. Bush let the energy giants write energy and EPA policy, and he effectively let the banks convince the Congress to do away with the last protections left over from the 1929 crash. How did that go?
"As for business limiting competition...I fear we will not agree on this. Given a level playing field, private industry can compete to increase effeciency and reduce costs. If one company goes out of business, it is most likely due to the other company lowering costs to the consumer with an equal or better product. Consumer wins."
Then, if the public option is a lesser quality product, it will lose in the market place. But the private companies don't want even the option, because it may cut into CEO salaries. As for 'Given a level playing field' this is an appeal to an alternate universe where such a hypothetical construct exists. I agree that in an ideal universe, competition would bring about a better result, but lets just take a look at gasoline refinement. How is it that prices go up and down, unrelated to the cost of a barrel of oil? Because it is a monopoly. There are few enough companies controlling enough of the industry that they can effectively 'set the price'. The same thing is going on in health care. Most Americans have the local choice of one giant insurer. How is that competition?
"I am aware that SOME jobs have been outsourced to other countries. Why...too expensive to keep here due to federal regulations (like the upcoming mandated healthcare!!). But, it is a small portion of the overall company. According to the US Bureau of Labor, the total number of employees in Insurance companines as of June 2009 is 2.266 MILLION. That's a pretty good chunk to not shed a tear..."
I'm not shedding any tears for anyone overseas who has a job that used to belong to an American. Additionally, your statistic is about the entire insurance industry, not just health insurance. So, homeowners, automobile, business insurance all included. Anyone who loses a job in the private health insurance sector could probably go to work for the public option, or retrain for a new career. Happens all the time.
"I agree that we are not CURRENTLY a socialist nation, but this president is moving as fast as possible to that end. Yes, the federal government may not control the small banks around me...they simply let them fail (64 failed banks so far this year). But, they do own the largest, with the most power (Citi, Fannie, Freddie), and have leverage over others (Goldmans, BoA, etc...).
Do you believe in socialism? Or, do you believe (as our founding fathers did) in individual rights?
I'm glad you agree we are not a socialist nation. I disagree that President Obama is moving us that way. It was said about Social Security, it was said about Medicare/Medicaid, it was said about the New Deal and the Great Society programs. Are we socialist? No. We are and will continue to be a democratic republic. I do not believe Obama is a socialist, nor do I believe he is interested in ruling a socialist state or in creating one.
I believe in individual rights, yes, but the government also has a responsibility to do what it can to improve the lives of it's citizens. This is why the government regulates the food industry, pharmaceuticals, automobiles, doctors, etc. If a public option will slow the rampant rise of health coverage costs, and make it more affordable for Americans to go to the doctor and be treated, then I am certain in favor of a little intervention.
Obama is moving this country toward socialism. The New Deal, Social Security, Medicare...all socialist programs, all started with progressives, all moving us toward a socialist end. It is true that our country is not switching with revolutionary speed like the Soviet Union, but that does not change the fact that it is happening.
I have read the US Constitution. It does not say anywhere that the federal government has a responsibility to improve the lives of its citizens. You will undoubtedly refer to Article 1, Section 8, which refers to the "general welfare". But, if you read the notes of the founding fathers, they make clear that the above clause is absolutely limited to the powers enumerated within the Constitution, and that ALL powers not explicitly defined within the Constitution are granted to the people.
So, it is in fact the PEOPLES responsibility to make their lives better.
Over the last 30 years, which people have used the government to make their lives better? (Feel free to bring up Clinton. He was a moderate Republican in actuality if not party affiliation.)
Rather than screaming about the government getting involved in health care, etc, be part of the cure. Come up with your own answers, get them out there, have them debated. Just because I personally think a single payer system might just work really well, doesn't mean that I am right, or even that we should do this.
As an individual who strongly believes in individuals rights and small government, I'm not sure I have a good answer for you. I know that the federal government has a long history of being ineffectual with large systems of any kind (i.e. Social Security, Medicare...even the Fed).
Here are keys to my personal belief:
Can a rightwinger explain why we pay more than everybody else (16% of GDP) to cover a portion of our population, while some countries pay well under 10% of GDP, but manage to cover everyone? Why aren't we learning from them?
Because the health care deniers lie and the media can't adequately explain the issue by exposing these lies.
I would venture to say that one of the PRIMARY reasons the US spends so much on healthcare (anywhere from 13-18% of GDP from various reports) is simply the fact that the US federal government is currently providing health coverage for ~25% of the population, between Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. The politicians have been unable to control costs, and have run Medicare and Medicaid to the brink of insolvency. The VA has mixed results, with about half saying the waits are unbearable, the level of treatment inadequate, and often seeking private options.
I would also add that the United States of America, the very country that many progressives are quick to slam, is the worlds leader in health care innovation. It takes money to create cures.
Iraq only spends 1.5% of GDP on healthcare...but I wouldn't want to live there.
I'm one of those healthcare innovators, an inventor and entrepreneur currently working on two medical devices and one medical research firm.
In Silicon Valley we break down inventions into "faster-better-cheaper" and "brave new world."
One of these brave new world projects is for significantly improved cancer surgery. The innovators are in....Europe. If we're lucky, the technology which is saving lives today in Europe may make it to the US in 3 years.
Why not US first? First hurdle is FDA compliance. Even though cancer patients may be willing to try experimental procedures, we need to complete FDA clinical trials. In Europe, (yep, those darn Socialists) they can obtain patient permission as well as research grants to test experimental procedures.
Here, our next big hurdle is healthcare reimbursement. If our surgical technology saves 10% more patients, or eliminates the need for 50% of followup cancer surgeries, what is it worth? Some insurers will refuse to pay for it, even if the cost is just $3,000 per procedure. I use the example that the patient will gladly pay $5,000, but the insurer may only pony up $1,000, and the doctor feels it's worth $2,500 to provide more successful patient prognosis and avoid having to deliver bad news.
We also have a "faster-better-cheaper" technology for managing chronic illnesses such as obesity and COPD/Asthma. For $100 a year we can reduce hospitalizations, saving about $1,700 a year par patient.
I can't speak for others, but I'm "slamming" the US healthcare system because we spend incredibly large sums on useless gadgets and overpriced drugs (Cialis et al) in much the same way we buy expensive military gear that isn't benefiting our troops because it's built in a politically powerful congressman's district.
I'm slamming the US system because the finance people are in charge, not doctors, and the incentives are rigged to increase the compensation of senior management by denying coverage to patients.
Yeet I'm a capitalist too! I'm an entrepreneur with a team of people who want to get rich off these inventions. But an outsized share of the profits are flowing to the ^&*(#)$ insurers for denying coverage, not people who actually deliver health care and improve patient outcomes.
My greatest fear with federal healthcare is that the lobbyists will rig the system for the benefit of big pharma and capital-intensive tech like million dollar P.E.T. scanners rather.
Despite my trepidation,I'm in favor of single payer and believe a European-style solution would be just fine. Having seen how the system works in Europe and Canada, my coverage here in the US is an embarrassment.
That is the best point I have heard, yet, and basically hits the nail on the head.
Instead of focusing on inovation (e.g. "faster-better-cheaper") we have a system that is more concerned about cost from the "how can we make more money" standpoint.
These are some great points to ponder. I will do more research on each of your points before responding.. :)
I will say that one of the entities you refer to, the FDA, is part of the problem. That is a federal entity, and I do believe you have a point with the delays and additional costs. Let's fix that!!
And for healthcare reimbursement...I agree completely. The current private insurance companines are also laden with paper work and regulations, it has become a nightmare.
But again, nice job on providing a well-thought-out response.
As the only innovation in the healthcare insurance industry has been in maximizing profits at the expense of health care access to the sick, you have no point on those grounds as far as I am concerned. The private healthcare system itself has been fantastic at innovation and nothing I said is a complaint against that.
What you just said is that the government can kick the free market's ass up and down the room. Otherwise companies would be incentivized to provide the "best" insurance.
The federal government will drive private business out, but not by "kick the free market's ass", but through unlimited resources and legislation. Do private businesses have the ability to print money if they run a deficit? No. They go bankrupt. Does the federal government ever go bankrupt? Apparently not...The progressives led by Obama are heading toward a multi-TRILLION dollor deficit. Hard to compete against that.
I thought it didn't, but I'm learning...
1) We pay about twice as much per capita for our health care than do other modern nations ($6000 vs $3000).
2) We cover about 80% of our citizens compared to 100% for other nations.
3) Our health care is no better than other nations when you look at all metrics, not just those cherry picked by the right.
One additional fact. Informing our citizens of the above facts will never happen because we have no true media.
Maybe it is best that he finds a permanent, full-time job in TV entertainment (such as on the Faux News Channel) so he can't do any more damage in real politics.
He is a real butt-wipe.
When guys like Mike Enzi have a seat at the table, but someone like Bernie Sanders doesn't, I don't believe single payer has a snowball's chance.
"Already, the group of six has tossed aside the idea of a government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers, which the president supports but Republicans said was a deal-breaker.
"Instead, they are proposing a network of private, nonprofit cooperatives."
Both of these are lousy ideas. Republicans call a government run plan a deal breaker because....it works. I know too many people who are denied coverage due to "pre-existing conditions," many of which are not legitimate, but merely a visit to a doctor for a condition later proven to be non-existent.
Yet the invasion of Iraq is costing us MORE each year than nationalized healthcare will.
And to top it off,the law that created Medicare Part D prohibits the federal government from
providing prescription drug coverage directly through Medicare, as it does health care
coverage. Instead, prescription drug coverage under Part D is only available through private
insurance plans.Humana has made huge profits from MEDICARE part D.There are lots of arguments against government healthcare.I don't number "The end of private insurers" among them.
The law is online"
http://www.snipurl.com/insurancelaw
HealthCare reform was a good idea while it lasted. Apparently this generation still doesn't have the political courage to make it happen.