Out of touch: Conservative media argue insured don't need health care reform
Conservative media figures have echoed House Minority Leader John Boehner's statement that "93% of the American people have access to high-quality, affordable health insurance" by arguing that because most Americans purportedly have access to health insurance, health care reform constitutes, in Fox News host Steve Doocy's words, "blowing up the system for 5 percent" who don't. These media figures have ignored that tens of millions of Americans are underinsured and that the reform bills contain several provisions intended to benefit those currently insured.
From the July 30 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
DOOCY: Currently, 90 percent of all Americans have got some sort of health care coverage, which means they are effectively blowing up the system for 5 percent. Now, the 5 percent, you gotta worry about them -- you gotta worry about everybody who doesn't have it. But is it worth all of this for 5 percent?
BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): No, and Karl Rove wrote a great column today. The guy does so much research. How big is his staff? He says 91 percent of Americans have insurance; 84 percent are happy with it.
DOOCY: Right.
KILMEADE: When you start like that and work your way back, you wonder what the big deal is -- although I think health insurance is among the top five concerns for American people.
From the July 30 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
STEPHEN MOORE (Wall Street Journal senior economics writer): And the other problem -- which I think is an even bigger one for the Obama administration and the Democrats right now, Bill -- is it turns out that the vast majority of Americans do have health insurance, and about three out of four people who have health insurance, you know what, Bill? They kinda like the insurance they have. They like their access to the medical system. And, you know, Megyn --
BILL HEMMER (co-host): So, what they're wondering is, why blow up the system for --
MOORE: Exactly.
HEMMER: -- a small number?
Contrary to GOP claim echoed by conservative media, millions are underinsured
Boehner claim: "93% of the American people have access to high-quality, affordable health insurance." Conservative media figures have echoed Boehner's claim that "93% of the American people have access to high-quality, affordable health insurance." For example, in response to Moore's assertion that "the vast majority of Americans do have health insurance" and that "[t]hey kinda like the insurance they have," Hemmer asserted, "So, what they're wondering is, why blow up the system for a small number?"
In fact, roughly 25 million Americans were underinsured in 2007. The underinsured are "the percent of adults between 19 and 64 whose out-of-pocket health care expenses (excluding premiums) are 10 percent or more of family income." According to Cathy Schoen, senior vice president of The Commonwealth Fund, in 2007 "an estimated 25 million adults under age 65 were underinsured." That figure represents a significant increase over the past several years. As Schoen explained, "From 2003 to 2007, the number of adults who were insured all year but were underinsured increased by 60 percent." [Testimony before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee from Gail Shearer, director of health policy analysis for Consumers Union, February 24; Schoen testimony before HELP Committee, February 24]
The underinsured do not receive adequate care and face financial hardship. As Shearer explained: "Underinsurance is a problem for two key reasons: Inadequate coverage results in the financial burden of uncovered health care. In our survey, for example, 30% of the underinsured had out-of-pocket costs of $3,000 or more for the previous 12 months. Underinsurance can lead to medical debt and even bankruptcy. The second problem posed by underinsurance is delayed or denied health care and poorer health outcomes, caused by the financial barrier to care." Similarly, Schoen explained that the "experiences" of the underinsured were "similar" to those of the uninsured, noting that "over half of the underinsured and two thirds of the uninsured went without recommended treatment, follow-up care, medications or did not see a doctor when sick. Half of both groups faced financial stress, including medical debt." [Shearer testimony before HELP Committee, February 24; Schoen testimony before HELP Committee, February 24]
Insurance companies often cancel policies or deny coverage
Insured currently subject to rescission if they become ill. Insurance companies restrict or deny coverage by rescinding health insurance policies on the grounds that customers had undisclosed pre-existing conditions. On June 16, a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee held a hearing exploring this practice, with the goal of examining "the practice of 'post-claims underwriting,' which occurs when insurance companies cancel individual health insurance policies after providers submit claims for medical services rendered." The committee also released a memorandum finding that three major American insurance companies rescinded 19,776 policies for over $300 million in savings over five years, and that even that number "significantly undercounts the total number of rescissions" by the companies.
Currently, insurance companies deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. CNN senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen wrote in a May 14 CNN.com article, "According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 21 percent of people who apply for health insurance on their own get turned down, charged a higher price or offered a plan that excludes coverage for their pre-existing condition." Cohen added that "[t]he health insurance industry doesn't deny that people are rejected or charged higher premiums because of pre-existing conditions." Indeed, as Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius explained in May 6 testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, a goal of health care reform is to "end barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions." She continued: "In Kansas and across the country, I have heard painful stories from families who have been denied basic care or offered insurance at astronomical rates because of a pre-existing condition. Insurance companies should no longer have the right to pick and choose. We will not allow these companies to insure only the healthy and leave the sick to suffer."
Health care reform bills include provisions to address problems faced by the insured
Congressional bills ban recissions. According to a Ways and Means Committee staff description of the House bill, Section 112 "[r]equires ... renewal of insurance policies and prohibits the use of rescissions except in instances of fraud." And the HELP Committee bill similarly provides "guaranteed renewability of coverage," stating that "if a health insurance issuer offers health insurance coverage in the individual or group market, the issuer must renew or continue in force such coverage at the option of the plan sponsor of the plan, or the individual, as applicable."
House bill contains measure to control medical premium costs. The House bill as introduced requires qualified health insurance plans to meet a specified medical loss ratio, which is the part of revenue from premiums that actually pays for medical services. If insurers fail to meet this requirement, they are required to provide rebates to their enrollees.
Bills include provisions to help those who lose their insurance purchase new policies
Congressional bills prohibit the use of pre-existing conditions to deny coverage. According to a Ways and Means Committee staff description of the House bill, Section 111 "[p]rohibits the application of pre-existing condition exclusions," and Section 112 "[r]equires guaranteed issue (no one can be denied health insurance)." The Senate HELP bill similarly prohibits "discrimination based on health status," stating that a "group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage, may not establish rules for eligibility (including continued eligibility) of any individual to enroll under the terms of the plan or coverage based on [a number of] health status-related factors in relation to the individual or a dependent of the individual."
House and Senate bills provide subsidies to buy individual insurance. The House bill provides "individual affordability credits" through a Health Insurance Exchange to individuals who meet certain criteria, including being "enrolled under an Exchange-participating health benefits plan," not being "enrolled under such plan as an employee (or dependent of an employee) through an employer qualified health benefits plan," and having a "family income below 400 percent of the Federal poverty level for a family of the size involved." And according to a HELP Committee release, the Senate bill provides credits to "low-income" and "moderate-income" individuals "who enroll in plans through the Gateways" -- one term used to describe the exchanges. "Credits are provided on sliding scale, so that those with the lowest incomes receive the most help. Gateways, which will provide information on health insurance options, will administer these credits. The premium credits would be on a sliding scale up to 400% of the poverty line ($88,080 for a family of 4), with those at lower end receiving more."
Lose your job? So goes your insurance, unless you get employed again. COBRA is nice -- critical, in fact, for some of us. But it's often expensive, given that you have to pay for the same plan you had while employed. This can be hundreds. (For me, a single guy, it's about $300 a month. Families? Forget it.)
Pre-existing condition? Forget about getting insurance after COBRA runs out. I'm one of those. Just enough of a condition that insurance companies won't touch me unless I get my coverage through an employer. (This has the effect of keeping me from working as a self-employed contract employee, by the way, limiting my income, which in turn limits income tax revenues.)
Health Insurance Tax. Every car that ships out of the US has a health care tax assessed on it. That is, every car made here, has an additional health care cost of about $1500-$2000 per car tacked on to the price tag. This is because our employer-based system virtually requires employers to provide health insurance for every employee. Auto makers in other countries that have government provided health care don't have this "tax", thus giving them a leg up in a very competitive global market.
This isn't just about the 5% who don't have insurance. It's about the cost of the existing insurance, and The Fear of losing one's insurance and putting one's entire financial future at risk to one severe illness or accident. Conservatives and Blue Dogs should be ashamed of themselves for obstructing or diluting meaningful health care reform.
Why can't health care reform only include changes that affect those who don't have health insurance? Why do they have to take a wrecking ball to the whole thing for everyone's so called "benefit"?
You are absolutely right to say that everything manufactured, along with everything prepared, every service provided, basically any and every activity we undertake and everywhere we find ourselves, does indeed have a component of health care/medical insurance built into the cost. Virtually everything, virtually everywhere.
Its not a "tax" though, as taxes go into the government coffers. What it actually is, is a culmination of decades and decades of lobbying efforts, legislation paid for and even written by the insurance industry, helped in no small part by mis-guided legislative do-gooders & trial lawyers nailing massive damage claims against companies, governments and individuals, in all fairness AFTER generations of the latter exploiting and riding rough-shod over the people they've harmed.
What we have ended up with is a system of government mandated (READ: NOT FREE MARKET) absolute redundancy of over-lapping no-value-added, upward-driven,,, insurance premiums on everything, that each carry a sizeable health care/medical component. Its been a feeding frenzy not only for the insurance companies, but very much for Wall Street as well as all that nefariously siphoned cash makes its way through their hands in one form or another. They have a vested interest in making the most money for the least amount of risk and exposure, its what they do, and every time the cost of medical services & supplies go up, every time they can split the bill for a Claim between any number of diffrent policies, or spend more than a Claim is even worth duking it out in Court to deny their own liability, it all very much works in THEIR favor, as they have a completely captive market. These guys work on commission, they are paid according to the amount of money they control, the more the better, for them.
The ONLY thing that is going to "fix" this, Private OR Public or a mixture of both, is no-fault one-stop medical coverage for everyone,,, and the complete elimination of every red cent of the then-unnecessary government mandated medical/health care premiums taken by any and every other source. Seriously, do you want to pay for/be taxed for/earn less money in order for everyone to have health insurance, and STILL have to keep paying the same extra amounts to all the same old places, for no legitimate reason whatsoever?
What gets me are the so-called conserevatives and so-called [private] free-marketers, who actually suppoirt keeping the big government and very much abuse thereof in this fascist/fabian socialist nonsense we have today. They are complete idiots.
If you only stop and think, you will see clearly all the forces arrayed against this, all the money it represents, and all the people who are hooked on it, and why they will do everything they can to keep the status quo with as few real changes as possible.
No one wants to think of the humble insurance agent down the street just doing his job and following the rules, as part of the problem, but he is a part of it. Say he makes his living selling car insurance, and he makes a percentage. Estimates range from 50-80% of your car insurance premium, goes to medical/health. Does he want to see his own income drop by 50-80%? Or, if that component is removed altogether and there is no further legitimate reason for the government to mandate car insurance anymore (as with many other types of insurance) and it reverts to a truly free market again, he may be out of business altogether. He has a family too, just an honest guy, making a living & trying to get ahead.
Here is the thing though, we have all sat by and watched hundreds of thousands of good honest jobs go away year after year, either out-moded or shipped overseas, and we deal with it, we justify it. In this case however its a little different, a big part of the reason all those jobs have gone, all the hopes and dreams and livelihoods of counltess Americans,,, we aren't "competitive". Well, taking your own example, how much more competitive for those jobs would we be, if the cost to manufacture a car here dropped by $2000? How much more could the workers earn per vehicle, how much less would a consumer have to pay, how much better would the company's bottom line be in a win-win-win scenario such as that? So sorry for the insurance salesman, so sorry for the insurance companies and their upper management and yes so sorry for their investors. Move on, deal with it, retrain, find another career, work harder, change your lifestyle, lower your expectations.... Same advice the rest of us have been getting for decades, it has to be good enough for them too. Feckless, patronizing pseudo-sympathy for one and all.
This is the only way towards a hope of fix health care and to put it within reach of everyone, and it also just happens to be the only way to do it AND preserve an actual Free Market, without any reduction in quality of service, without expanding the size and scope of government, raising taxes or giving our children's children a bigger debt to pay. The money is already there, many times over, its already being spent, its just getting diverted to way too many opportunists and middlemen who have inserted themselves into the equation and have each in-turn driven the costs up and up and up.
That all has to go.
Its actually the first logical step towards any legitimate solution, it eliminates so many of the problems and does the most good for everyone, for We the People, which explains why neither Party and the free-lunch-bunch they pander to have touched it with a ten foot pole. This factor has been conspicuously ABSENT from ALL the dialogue, from all the proposals, from ALL sides.
Doesn't matter of you are conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, Free Market Capitalist or dog-whistle Socialist, rich or poor, sick or healthy, all thats required is a weee smidgen of grey matter. Just think, and let your family, friends and neighbors, your leaders and especially your government know, that you are finally,,, thinking.
One-stop, no-fault health/medical insurance for every american, in a fair and efficient free market system with decreasing costs. I am not talking about boob jobs, face-lifts, penis enlargements, foot surgery to squeeze into cruel shoes or any other kind of shallow vanity nonsense of course, and I'm not talking about fixing deep-fried twinkie addictions or demanding an airlift and a team of specialists every time little jr. farts in a suspicious E flat instead of a reassuring C minor. Foolishness should always burden the foolish.
I am talking about if you are sick or injured and need medical attention, you are covered. Thats what we need, and that is very do-able.
2) When purchasing Car Insurance people "select" which plan works for them according to their budget and needs. So, why can't people "select" a HealthCare Insurance Coverage Plan that works for them and their family like they do with Car Insurance without Employment Pre-Selection?
3) Why are Republicans "against" Individual Rights for people's own "selection" of a HealthCare Insurance Coverage Plan?
Oh wait ... sorry started to think out loud. Your "great" comments made me think out loud. LOL
Of course, reality divides there, also.
Is current health care affordable and how fast are costs rising?
Who really controls your health care? You or your insurance company?
What happens if you lose the lotto and have a health care crisis that uses up all your benefits, what then?
I could go on but; why bother. As long as we leave the blinders on, and do no research on our own, we obviously don't have any issues with our current health care system so why should we worry about fixing or improving it?
It is also an example of how to mislead on issues. Only state the points that you want people hear (X% have insurance, Y% are satisfied).
Don't mention any data that does not support your argument (if we pay way more than what we should, for what we get, don't mention it)
Also, make statements that are unsupported by any data but; sound good. (America has the best health care in the world)
Dude I just had to go to a free clinic to get blood pressure medicine and be seen by a doctor. I have no insurance and no job and I still do not support any form of government run, sponsored, or supported health care.
Is our current system perfect, no. But that is for us to change without government interference. We are the consumers and therefore have the full power over the insurance companies because they need us for their money.
Health Care is not a right and is not something government should be getting involved in.
I guess we have to accept that there will always be a certain percentage of the country that will never face facts, even when facing the facts. Note how he/she defends insurance company profits.
And yeah, I got a laugh at the idea that "We are the consumers and therefore have the full power over the insurance companies because they need us for their money" WHat a loob. COMPANIES pay 80% of the bill now, and THEY are the ones who pick the plan for you. YOU. HAVE. NO. SAY. AT. ALL. To think otherwise is to revel in your ignorance.
We have far mroe control of the gov't - it's easier to lobby then, and vote them in or out, than it ever will be to influence a corporation. The Gov't WORKS FOR US. And the increasing corporate influence is due to idiots like that jackhoel who keep voting republican. As it it, the only way you CAN influence a corporation is by lobbying the gov't.
These people would be amusing if their ignorance wasn't so dangerrous.
Later in the interview, he said that he (and his family - he has kids!!!) decided to drop health care to pay for household expenses.
Pete, just got a little dose of Hannity, and let me paraphrase a little conversation he had with himself on the radio;
" I've gone to the doctor, and paid cash instead of using my insurance, and let me tell you, it's not really that expensive. Now, you might say 'Sean, you have a lot of money', but that's not the point!"
WTF? Somebody who makes 100 times what his average fan does telling them what's affordable, and the fact that he makes 100x what they do is irrelevant?
Suckers.
Logic does rule. Give it a whirl sometime.
Come on, go out and buy a private plan. I'm pretty sure you'll get a good deal from your pals. Of course, if you're getting on in age or have a pre-existing condition, you might strain the bonds of friendship with your insurance buddies.
So, if it's true that 90% of Americans are happy with their overpriced health care, how much more will they like a public option that gives them better coverage for less money?
Gosh, stated that way I guess the private insurance companies DO have something to worry about. I hope they've been putting some of that money they've been overcharging us away for a rainy day...
This is a smaller company, so I know the people who are working on continuing to offer medical benefits to the employees. I know how much research they put into it and how much they hate having to announce those hikes every year.
The current system doesn't work. I don't believe that the level of satisfaction with insurance is anywhere near as high as Kilmeade and Moors claim.
As I've said elsewhere, I guess I qualify as "satisfied" with my employer-provided insurance, but that's really only in the sense that having it is better than not having it. It's not like I think they're doing an awesome job, or even a job a government-backed plan couldn't do at least as well, and for less money.
What I do not understand is, why are the people that are against health care reform really against it?
If you read the comments of posters against it on this site, it is mostly because they are getting their info from those in the media that are against it, but why is , say Hannity, aainst any reform?
Is it ideological? I dont think Hannity has any ideology.
Can reform be bad? Not from the lies opposers have to resort to.
Are the opposers paying Hannity? I do not believe so.
Is it because a good cause is being pursued by a President you did not vote for? I do not know.
Is there a class of people who would live without health insurance, or get sub-standard coverage for their money just because they think any reform means poorer coverage? These people need to get better informed.
Is it the deficit? majority of Americans cannot spell the word, bankruptcies, record credit card debt.
Why the resistance?
I don't want the government to get bigger, am I somehow wrong for choosing to feel that way. Maybe most important; the government is terrible at running just about everything.
Can you point out anybody here who has said they feel entitled to have their health care paid for by somebody else? Or have you just bought into the "freeloaders want free healthcare" theme that the mainstream media feeds you?
Check out the videos of the people screaming down the town hall meetings. These aren't people acting on any reason or deep thinking. It's a completely emotional reaction that has involved years of training.
I recently watched that documentary Jesus Camp, about the young children being indoctrinated into the Evangelical Christian cult, and while I don't think all conservatives are that looney, the black & white thinking is pretty similar.There is good & evil, us & them, and no in-between. If everything can be fed to them in these clear-cut terms, there's no reason to think at all.
A couple of scenes from Jesus Camp that were pretty sad;
Home=schooled kids pledging allegiance to the Christian Flag of America
A ceramic cup at the camp with the word "government" written on it in marking pen. The kids were encouraged to go up and smash the cup with a hammer. The same kids who are taught to worship the military and corporations are taught to destroy the government, at least the non-Christian government.
As I have spoken always to such revisionist comments, some of you Copperheads are approaching the same ideoligical boundaries as the Holocaust Deniers when you so wrongly equate the actual Republicans and the actual ideals of the Republican Party to the actual Nazi's.
In all fairness, however, I would be one of the very first to admit that control of the GOP, Lincoln's Party, has been largely hijacked discredited and destroyed by the Neo-Cons (Neo-Nazis-in-Drag) in the last few decades, and a lot of the very worst people that once pulled the Blue lever have migrated, and brought their disease with them. They may wear Red now, they may duck-speak and goose-step, they may make the rest look very bad, but, they are NOT actually and ideologically "Republicans".
If you wish to go back into history and conjure the Nazi's, that is fine, and can be very fitting, but at least be intellectually honest about it by putting averything else in the same historical context where it belongs.
Really? If they're not actually Republicans, what the h*ll are they?
The Republican party has been in the hands of the Jim Crow crowd since the 1960's.
After the 1964 presidential election, in which Republican Barry Goldwater appealed directly to the white Democrats of the South, the GOP began to consciously morph itself into the White Man’s Party in Dixie. Like the Dixie Democrats, the Republicans fashioned campaigns that essentially ran against Black people. It became the Dixiecrat party, and has structured every national campaign strategy around its race-based stronghold in the southern states.
Just look at Republican political campaign since the 1960's a see how many times you heard, 'for states rights', 'for 'law and order', for 'welfare reform', and 'against affirmative action', 'quotas', 'tax and spend liberals', 'activist judges', and 'busing'.
States rights? Wasn't that the goal of the confederacy?
Today's Republican party still includes the same racists, who left the Democratic Party in the 60s and 70s because they hated Civil Rights. You've just added a few new ones like Limbo, Hannity, Malkin, Coulter, Quinn, Bill O, Dobbs, just to name a few.
You don't want to call them Republicans? Tell the members of your party to grow a set and stop allowing those folks to speak for Republicans.
The actual founding principles of neither Party have changed. We have a lot of people on both sides pitching for the wrong team.
As to the history, there you would be largely mistaken and probably surprised. It was the Democrats who were totally against the Rights of States in the North to harbor or even confer citizenship on escaped negroes. They very much tried to use the power of the central government to quash that with the Fugitive Slave Act It was the Democrats who wanted slavery in all the Territories and new States, against the wishes of the inhabitants, and forced the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Supreme Court bolstered them with Decisions such as Dredd Scott (Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 404–06, 417–18, 419–20 (1857)).
After the Civil War and the eventual 3/5 measure of Freedom afforded by the 14th Amendment during Reconstruction (to this day, SCOTUS has NEVER ruled that the 14th made the full Bill of Rights applicable to the states, or to any who are not Citizens of the states) it was the Democrats that pushed for and got Jim Crow, and for nearly a century thats about all the 14th did for the freedmen.
Instead the 14th WAS used to give the legal fictions known as corporations the status and protections of "persons" and allowed them to operate outside the confines of the states they were incorporated in. It WAS then used as a battering ram to obliterate every attempt in the progressive states to pass child labor laws, employee rights, work-place safety & working hour standards, mandate pensions, allow Unions to form, etc. It is what gave us the Gilded Age of Conspicuous Consumption, Trusts, Monopolies, Robber Barons and then the Great Depression.
After all that, the size and scope of government exploded because now everyone HAD to go to and depend on the Central Government to do things it was never designed for, as the 14th and the Decisions of the Supreme Court had made it all-but impossible for the states to protect and legislate in the best interests of their Citizens. Since that fundamental paradigm shift, our Constitution and our entire system of government has been completely out-of-bounds.
The end of Jim Crow finally came with the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960's, under the Power of the Commerce Clause,,, NOT the 14th Amendment.
What we have now would make the Federalists turn in their graves.
In some relatively few instances where the 14th has been used to actually protect people from the states, and has accidentally furthered some progressive causes, is a late development.
Things are rarely as we imagine them, or wish them to be.
Oh, and for clarification, while I still identify with many of the original principles of the Republican Party, just as I identify with the Constitution, I certainly don't count myself as one anymore, and probably never will again.