Ignoring reality, Fox & Friends continues its health rationing scare campaign
Once again, Fox & Friends advanced the falsehood that health care reform would create a system of rationing care, with Fox News contributor Dr. Marc Siegel predicting that President Obama's proposals would result in the disappearance of medical procedures like dialysis for the elderly. But despite Fox & Friends' pattern of fearmongering, insurance companies already ration care and sometimes deny coverage of lifesaving treatments, and the Obama administration has said that its health care reform efforts seek to put doctors, rather than insurance companies, in charge of these decisions.
From the August 7 edition of Fox & Friends:
PETER JOHNSON JR. (guest co-host): And yesterday we told you about five procedures that could disappear under the president's health care proposal. Today we have five more to discuss with you.
GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): And joining us now, Fox News medical contributor Dr. Marc Siegel.
Fearmongering on rationing is a GOP strategy
Luntz memo urged Republicans to emphasize the "consequences of rationing." In a memo to Republicans outlining rhetorical strategies for opposing Obama's health care reform initiative, Frank Luntz wrote: "Put simply, while Americans would oppose the concept (and reality) of healthcare rationing, it is the impact of rationing -- the long waits for tests, the denial of care, the thousands of people fleeing to America to get the care they can't get in their own countries -- this is what truly frightens the public more than the word rationing itself. ... The word "rationing" does induce the negative response you want, but what you really want audiences to focus on is the "consequences of rationing."
Scare tactics deny reality: Insurance companies already ration care
Sebelius saw rationing by "private insurers" on "a regular basis" while serving as Kansas insurance commissioner. During her confirmation hearings, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius stated, "I, frankly, as insurance commissioner, where I served for eight years, saw [rationing] on a regular basis by private insurers, who often made decisions overruling suggestions that doctors would make for their patients, that they weren't going to be covered. And a lot of what we did in the office of the Kansas Insurance Department was go to bat on behalf of those patients to make sure that the benefits that they had actually paid for were, in fact, ones that were delivered." [Senate confirmation hearing, 3/31/09]
Sebelius: "Health care providers," not "private insurers" should make coverage decisions. In Sebelius' words:
It's private insurers who often are telling their clients that, "No, you can't get this recommended treatment that the doctor has made"; "No, you can't get this drug"; "No, you're not going to be able to stay in the hospital an extra day"; "No, you're not going to get this because we're concerned about costs." So, people who say that, "Oh, this is a terrible idea; this could happen someday in the future," it's happening every day. But it's really private insurance plans that are making those decisions. What we're hoping to do is change that situation. Private insurance companies should no longer be able to decide who gets health coverage and who doesn't, what kinds of benefits are available. And we want to make sure that it's really health care providers that make those choices in the future. [Hardball, 6/15/09]
Health care reform designed to "end barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions." Discussing the administration's health-care reform goals, Sebelius stated that "we must 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." [House Ways & Means testimony, 5/6/09]
Insurance companies acknowledge that they already ration care. WellPoint chief medical officer Dr. Sam Nussbaum has stated that "where the private sector has been far more effective than government programs is in limiting clinical services to those that are best meeting the needs of patients." Nussbaum continued, "When we look at advanced imaging, and these -- this is MRI, CAT scan, PET scans -- we know that as much as 30 percent of those procedures are not necessary. And we've been able, over the last several years, to have growth in imaging procedures of between zero and 5 percent. The government, under CMS, has seen imaging grow 15 to 20 percent a year during the same time interval." [NPR Morning Edition, 7/15/09]
Insured individuals are currently subject to rescission of their coverage 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.
Fox & Friends has engaged in repeated fearmongering on rationing and care of elderly
Fox News' Johnson and Siegel suggest health care reform will deny kidney dialysis to the elderly.
From the August 7 edition of Fox & Friends:
JOHNSON: Kidney disease -- what if I have kidney disease and I need dialysis? We just have about 30 seconds, doctor.
SIEGEL: You know, Peter, I was studying dialysis last night, and 350,000 people are on dialysis every year. You know what? Most of them are elderly. Dialysis can help you get five or 10 years of quality life.
JOHNSON: So the concern is if you're too old, maybe you get it, maybe you don't, right?
SIEGEL: I don't want it taken away. I don't want it taken away from our elderly.
JOHNSON: Thanks, Dr. Siegel.
Siegel on "rationed care" under health reform: "[I]n a way it's a form of eugenics." Discussing "rationed care" that he said would occur under health care reform, Siegel asserted, "There's going to be more people trying to get in. I'm going to have less and less time to take care of them. Reimbursements to doctors and hospitals are being cut. If I'm being paid less, I got to work faster. That means I send more and more people for expensive tests. He's going to try to cost cut, which means he's going to ration care. So he's going to tell me what I can order, what I can't." After co-host Steve Doocy suggested that "unfairly, the elderly are the ones who are going to get shortchanged," Siegel asserted, "That's so true. In a way it's a form of eugenics: 'Oh, you're not good enough to live.' " [Fox & Friends, 7/22/09]
Johnson: Health care reform is "a subtle form of euthanasia." Johnson said: "Some people are saying, well, this is a health care reform, other people say -- maybe me -- that this is a subtle form of euthanasia. And when you start looking at the proposals, you say, God, what's happening? One of the proposals, Section 1233, talks about advanced care planning consultations. And that's a fancy term where a doctor goes to you every five years once you're 65, or more if you're chronically ill, and explains to you the benefits of so-called palliative care, of not giving active treatment." Co-host Brian Kilmeade subsequently claimed, "Wow. Somebody you don't even know will decide if you're going to live." [Fox & Friends, 7/27/09]
Johnson: An "Aldous Huxley kind of world." Discussing health-care reform, Johnson asserted, "Advanced care planning consultation is kind of our 2009 Brave New World, Soylent Green, 1984, Aldous Huxley kind of world where you come in and see your doctor at age 65, and if you're chronically ill you come in every year, and your doctor -- who will be trained, and they will spend billions of dollars in training doctors to be counselors -- that, 'You have options. You don't have to go into a hospital.' " Doocy then asked, "Are you saying these are the people that are going to determine whether you live or die?" and Brian Kilmeade subsequently characterized the provision as the "ultimate exit strategy." [Fox & Friends, 7/28/09]
Doocy suggests that under health care reform, you'll be asked, "Isn't it just time?" During a segment on "rumors" about end-of-life care, Gretchen Carlson stated that "if you were looking for a way to cut costs, some people argue who don't agree with this health-care reform bill, they argue that, yeah, maybe they will decide to not give elderly people the care that many people believe they deserve to continue their life." Steve Doocy subsequently claimed, "Besides, you look at other countries that have nationalized health-care situations, frequently there's a board that sits there and they go, 'OK. You're 85. You know, this $75,000 surgery just doesn't make sense. So rather than you winding up with this new lifesaving thing that could extend your life, you know, isn't it just time?' " [Fox & Friends, 7/29/09]
Malkin on Fox & Friends: Health care reform "puts a discount on the lives of elderly people." Discussing AARP's support for health care reform, conservative columnist Michelle Malkin stated, "The AARP just held a tele-town hall supporting Obama on his health care takeover plans, and this is at odds, it seems to me, with the best interests of millions of AARP members, given that that health care plan puts a discount on the lives of elderly people and would result in the redistribution of health away from the elderly and the infirm to other special favored interests and patients." [Fox & Friends, 7/30/09]
Johnson tells viewers to ask Congress member if government will "decide whether I live or die." Urging viewers to protest health-care reform during Congress' August recess, Johnson said, "People have to be contacting their congresspeople" in order to ask, "If I need to get a hip replacement, am I going to get it? If I've got private insurance now and I'm happy with it, am I going to lose it? Is the government going to decide whether I live or die at some point in the future?" [Fox & Friends, 8/3/09]
Fearmongering about euthanasia echoes discredited right-wing smear
Claims of mandatory counseling for seniors to end their lives are false. Fox & Friends' suggestions that health care reform will lead to the elderly being encouraged to die echo the discredited right-wing myth that a provision in the House health care reform bill would require that seniors receive "mandatory" end-of-life counseling sessions that would, in Betsy McCaughey's words, "tell them how to end their life sooner." Contrary to these assertions, the bill does not make end-of-life counseling mandatory. The relevant section of the bill amends the Social Security Act to ensure that advance care planning will be covered if a patient requests it from a qualified care provider [America's Affordable Health Choices Act, Sec. 1233]. According to an analysis of the bill produced by the three relevant House committees, the section "[p]rovides coverage for consultation between enrollees and practitioners to discuss orders for life-sustaining treatment. Instructs CMS to modify 'Medicare & You' handbook to incorporate information on end-of-life planning resources and to incorporate measures on advance care planning into the physician's quality reporting initiative." [waysandmeans.house.gov, accessed 7/29/09]
PolitiFact: Claim that seniors would be told how to end lives sooner "is an outright distortion." Criticizing McCaughey's false claims, PolitiFact.com wrote that the "claim that the sessions would 'tell [seniors] how to end their life sooner' is an outright distortion. Rather, the sessions are an option for elderly patients who want to learn more about living wills, health care proxies and other forms of end-of-life planning. McCaughey isn't just wrong, she's spreading a ridiculous falsehood." [PolitiFact.com, 7/23/09]
Transcript
From the August 7 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
JOHNSON: And yesterday we told you about five procedures that could disappear under the president's health care proposal. Today we have five more to discuss with you.
CARLSON: And joining us now, Fox News medical contributor Dr. Marc Siegel. Good to see you, Dr. Siegel.
SIEGEL: Good morning, Gretchen.
CARLSON: All right, so the first you want to talk about is targeted treatments, specifically things like chemotherapy, right?
SIEGEL: I don't think people realize out there how well we're doing with cancer right now. We used to just poison the cancer, and then we would end up poisoning the body. Now we have targeted antibiotics that go right to the cancer, but they don't work in everyone.
So how is insurance, one size fit all, going to cover this when it only works for certain people and it's very expensive? We have that with Herceptin, which has an 80 percent response rate for extensive breast cancer. It's a miracle drug. Only works in about 20, 30 percent -- same with some other targeted therapies.
I think that these could become extinct, even though they are the latest and greatest treatments. I'm very worried about that possibility.
JOHNSON: Now there's certain cosmetic or reconstructive procedures that are, in fact, covered by insurance when they are medically necessary. What's your concern about that under a prospective Obama plan?
SIEGEL: Well, you know, Peter, it's the same problem. I mean, how are going to justify it? You say, well, I can't breathe, I need a rhinoplasty. That's a very important consideration.
JOHNSON: Which is a nose job.
SIEGEL: Right, which is a nose job. Who's going to decide if you can't breathe or not? Here's another one: burns. One to 2 million people a year are burned. Thirty percent burns -- you have to go into burn unit. Guess what? You need hospital re-admission for more and more plastics procedures. They're already talking about cutting down on re-admissions.
JOHNSON: Transplants -- tell us about transplants.
SIEGEL: Well, liver transplants, I think, are really in danger, because already we have 16,000 people waiting for them. Only 6,500 people get them. Well, what if you're a drinker? What if you have a problem with cirrhosis? Are they going to get approved? We may end up with a point where only Steve Jobs gets a liver transplant and nobody else.
CARLSON: The leader of Apple. OK, bariatric surgery -- this is a huge thing; so many people get this done to fight their obesity problem. That could go away?
SIEGEL: I'm very worried about that, too. Look, 200,000 cases were done in 2008. It's up from 140,000 cases. Let me explain about gastric bypass surgery. It actually -- I'm convinced now; I used to be against it. I now think it really works. It cuts down on diabetes. It cuts down on high blood pressure. It cuts down on heart disease. If you're three or 400 pounds, you need these procedures.
JOHNSON: Kidney disease -- what if I have kidney disease and I need dialysis? We just have about 30 seconds, doctor.
SIEGEL: You know, Peter, I was studying dialysis last night, and 350,000 people are on dialysis every year. You know what? Most of them are elderly. Dialysis can help you get five or 10 years of quality life.
JOHNSON: So the concern is if you're too old, maybe you get it, maybe you don't, right?
SIEGEL: I don't want it taken away. I don't want it taken away from our elderly.
JOHNSON: Thanks, Dr. Siegel.
SIEGEL: You bet.
CARLSON: Wow. You've been doing a lot of reading.
SIEGEL: You bet I have.
CARLSON: Thank you very much for parsing that down for us.
I think it's past time for the president and congressional leaders to address this head-on and explicitly; it's flagrant BS, but how did refusing to address flagrant BS work out for John Kerry?
There will, however, be parity for mental health coverage, which is probably going to come in handy, because it seems like about 25% of the body politic is riddled with paranoid rage and a distinct reality disconnect.
Mr. Obama won, and he is a black man. That is what is really behind all of this.
Kilmeade a/k/a Doofus, Doocy a/k/a Meanie & Gretchen a/k/a Short Skirts, all 3 of them belong in the Clown's Booth.
These three Cromagnons sit on that couch like they are Untouchable.
I hope they understand that they are on my "Poetry to Do" list just as soon as i'm Assuagible.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
For those who have not read the bill, please search the word dialysis. You will see the section wherein the healthcare bureaucrats may override the decisions of the patient's doctors. It would seem likely therefore that if a doctor mandates dialysis 6 days per week, the government could reduce this number to four. Now there is silent epidemic of kidney disease. If the government must look at each case individually this will certainly slow down delivery of services just as in the UK where a 6 month wait is applauded and the clinic doing so is given an award.
The bills are admittedly designed to ration. You have heard many times the President state that unnecessary procedures will be eliminated. I will tell you from my experience with kidney failure, there is nothing unnecessary when you are the patient.
It is self proving that private insurance will remain a better choice. Congress has voted itself exempt from the national heatlhcare program. Congress will retain its ability to choose from one of eight private plans. This should be the end of the argument. Remember separate is not equal.
Health care currently is a lottery. A lottery where you pay what they demand and they pay as little as they can get away with. You may "win" your life, but have no money left to live it. The insurance companies have corrupted the health system. Now it is time to force the health care complex to provide world class care not just the most expensive care.
what we are seeing is a repeat of the same process after clinton took office and limbaugh was running a daily "count", such as "day 79 of america held hostage". apparently elections don't count with one side. Your text to link here...
Not quite, tedesa; they know they can make up blatant lies and the teabagging public is stupid enough to believe them. As Mencken put it, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people...
People that always live in fear, afraid of anything that's not coming from Fox, willing to do anything for what Fox says.
I hesitate when I say this, but any dictator would be proud.
And to comment on the topic of Obam-Care. . the problem with a health-care plan that wants to tax people more to provide care to those without, is that you cannot force people to provide for others. This is one of the founding principles of this nation, it is called Liberty. Most people that work 70+ hours per week and actually accomplish something are not willling to provide for those who may not or are unlucky enough not to have healthcare. Although it is noble for us to want to provide food, shelter and healthcare for every person on the planet, it just doesn't work that way. Soon all incentive for people to create jobs (businesses) and be successful will be taken away from overburdensome taxation and government restrictions. Then the people that used to create wealth and drive the economy will want to work for the government just to get all the free handouts because their 70+ hour weeks, risk of putting their own saved money into a start-up business, lawsuits from the lazy employees and constant stress and worry just won't be worth it anymore. Risk = Reward with no gauranteed outcome (even if you don't take any risk). This is a land that should have equal oppurtunity, not equal outcome. Free healthcare = equal outcome. Why should we not have to pay for healthcare? What about food & water? Shouldn't that be free too? Cars should probably be free also along with the gas, cause I really just don't feel like paying for it and I need more money for smoking weed with my friends on the weekend.
how do you know what i dont know about from reading one post i made?
because i felt like making a sarcastic response... im sorry that it is not up to your level of being "intellectual". and no, its not confusing for me, its confusing for her because she doesnt know what the hell she is talking about.
if its such a joke and not to your satisfaction, why are you on here posting comments? go to newsbusters and drink the far right kool-aid with everybody else in bizarro world, and we'll stay here using actual common sense to make a rational point.
actually, i dont smoke weed. i have before (who hasnt?), but i happen to value the health of my lungs and the "intellectual" brain cells that i have. cant say the same thing for you, though. and also, i dont fully support global warming to the point where i am complaining about it, but the ideas that conservatives have against it are deplorable and lack any use of knowledge. for proof of that, check out hannity's ridiculous claim that the temperature in new york being at an all time low this summer shows that global warming doesnt exist. what a rocket scientist he is, huh?
lol... i didnt vote for it. like i care if somebody votes me up or down on a website. its patently absurd to even care. in fact, ill even give myself a thumbs down to show that i dont care. will that make you happy?
as for the rest of your long, ranting diatribe, im not even going to specifically address it because from reading over it, its clearly just a bunch of talking points repeated by the republicans and conservatives that dont know anything about the healthcare bill and make things up to make people like you even more misinformed, and scaring them half to death as well. seriously, what bizarro world do you people live in? maybe you have had a little too much weed in your system, seeing as how you have been able to come up with that gibberish, let alone believing it. and you claim i should go smoke weed? pot meet kettle.
I see a lot of projection on this forum but scant evidence to the contrary.
Regarding cost, here is a link for cost per capita:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html
Here is life expectancy versus health care cost per capita:
http://wolafen.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/life-expectancy-versus-health-care-cost-per-capita/
So I think it is a no-brainer we are paying about twice as much per capita as other developed nations. It's also a fact we don't cover everyone, other countries do.
About your other points:
1) I'm not sure what a countries population has to do with a per capita statistic.
2) Regarding rationing do you really think we don't ration in this country? Health insurance companies make profits by rationing.
3) GDP per capita and unemployment rates? Not totally sure what your point is, but do you think the US is so different in these areas that it would account for twice the spending we dish out compared to other nations.
Also, shouldn't it be YOU who shows us how our health care system is so superior to other nations given that we spend twice as much ($6000 vs $3000) as other countries and yet cover only 85% of our citizens? Just how much extra are we getting for that money? Why doesn't the health insurance industry take a bunch of citizens and journalists to France and see how terrible their system is just to prove that the extra 3 grand we are forking over is moneny well spent. I dare them!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
We rank 15, France 16. That certainly won't explain the 3 grand gap in health spending per capita.
the republican strategy is to set older Medicare recipients against
young people who lack insurance or are one bad day at work away ffrom the free clinic at the church. Divide and conquer, don;t touch a piece of my pie.
Hilarious!
Even if you do have health insurance, Every Single Policy has limitations on what it will cover and for how long it will cover them. It limits the coverage of 'pre-existing conditions', it limits the diseases it covers, it limits the amount of counselling you can get from a psychiatrist, how many teeth you can have fixed a year. Need I go on?
Health care is already rationed... and not enough people get their rations. We can change this now if we are able to get past the party of "NO!". I hope the hell we do.