USA Today provides platform for Boehner health reform falsehood
USA Today published an op-ed by House Minority Leader John Boehner in which he claimed that a Democratic health care reform bill "would create a 'Health Benefits Advisory Committee' that would make determinations about what kinds of treatments, items and services can be covered within certain benefit classes" [emphasis added]. In fact, the provision Boehner cited sets minimum requirements for what "treatments, items and services" must be covered; moreover, Boehner's suggestion that the bill would create rationing ignores the fact that private insurers currently ration health care.
Boehner claimed health advisory committee determines what "can be covered"
From Boehner's August 13 USA Today op-ed:
And instead of using the power of the bully pulpit to rein in the speaker and her allies, the president has attempted to use it to spin the American people about the hopelessly flawed bill the speaker is seeking to pass in September.
[...]
Finally, the president claimed the plan will not lead to rationing. But the bill, on page 30, section 123, would create a "Health Benefits Advisory Committee" that would make determinations about what kinds of treatments, items and services can be covered within certain benefit classes, and what kind of cost sharing will occur.
But health advisory committee sets coverage floor, not ceiling
Bill description makes clear Health Benefits Advisory Committee recommends "benefits required to be included" in qualified plans. According to a section-by-section description of the Affordable Health Choices Act by committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Labor, section 123 establishes an advisory committee that will make recommendations "regarding the details of covered health benefits as outlined in Sec. 122," which "[o]utlines the broad categories of benefits required to be included in the essential benefits package" [emphasis added]. Section 123 does not state that the advisory committee will establish a cap on the types of health care services that can be covered. From the report:
SUBTITLE C - STANDARDS GUARANTEEING ACCESS TO ESSENTIAL BENEFITS
Sec. 121. Coverage of essential benefits package. Requires qualified plans to meet the benefit standards recommended by the Benefits Advisory Committee and adopted by the Secretary of HHS. Plans outside the Exchange must offer at least the essential benefits and others as they choose. Plans within the Exchange must meet the specified benefit packages, which includes a tier with offerings of additional benefits. Allows for the continued offering of separate excepted benefits packages as in current law outside of the Exchange.
Sec. 122. Essential benefits package defined. Outlines the broad categories of benefits required to be included in the essential benefits package, prohibits any cost-sharing for preventive benefits (including well child and well baby care), and limits annual out-of-pocket spending in the essential benefits package to $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 (indexed to CPI) for a family. Defines the initial essential benefit package as being actuarially equivalent to 70% of the package if there were no cost-sharing imposed.
Sec. 123. Health Benefits Advisory Committee. Establishes a Health Benefits Advisory Committee, chaired by the Surgeon General, with private members appointed by the President, the Comptroller General, and representatives of relevant federal agencies. The Advisory Committee will make recommendations to the Secretary of HHS regarding the details of covered health benefits as outlined in Sec. 122, including the establishment of the three tiers of coverage: basic, enhanced and premium.
Sec. 124. Process for adoption of recommendations; adoption of benefit standards. Establishes the timeline for the initial adoption of benefits by the Secretary of HHS and the period updating of standards in the future. [Report prepared by Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Labor, 7/14/09]
Section 121 requires qualified plans to "at least" meet benefit standards recommended by the advisory committee. From section 121:
IN GENERAL.-A qualified health benefits plan shall provide coverage that at least meets the benefit standards adopted under section 124 for the essential benefits package described in section 122 for the plan year involved. [Affordable Health Choices Act]
Section 122 outlines the benefits required to be included in qualified packages. From section 122:
Minimum Services To Be Covered- The items and services described in this subsection are the following:
(1) Hospitalization.
(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services, including emergency department services.
(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.
(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician's or a health professional's delivery of care in institutional settings, physician offices, patients' homes or place of residence, or other settings, as appropriate.
(5) Prescription drugs.
(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.
(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.
(8) Preventive services, including those services recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those vaccines recommended for use by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(9) Maternity care.
(10) Well baby and well child care and oral health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and supplies at least for children under 21 years of age. [Affordable Health Choices Act]
Section 123 establishes an advisory committee that recommends benefit standards for qualified packages. From section 123:
(a) Establishment --
(1) IN GENERAL -- There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.
[...]
(b) Duties --
(1) RECOMMENDATIONS ON BENEFIT STANDARDS- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the 'Secretary') benefit standards (as defined in paragraph (4)), and periodic updates to such standards. In developing such recommendations, the Committee shall take into account innovation in health care and consider how such standards could reduce health disparities.
(2) DEADLINE- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend initial benefit standards to the Secretary not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(3) PUBLIC INPUT- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall allow for public input as a part of developing recommendations under this subsection.
(4) BENEFIT STANDARDS DEFINED- In this subtitle, the term 'benefit standards' means standards respecting --
(A) the essential benefits package described in section 122, including categories of covered treatments, items and services within benefit classes, and cost-sharing; and
(B) the cost-sharing levels for enhanced plans and premium plans (as provided under section 203(c)) consistent with paragraph (5). [Affordable Health Choices Act]
Boehner's suggestion that bill would create rationing ignores 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. [MSNBC's Hardball, 6/15/09]
She was for it, Before she was against it, Before she was for it.
I guess they don't Teach Critical Thinking on a Moose Hunt.
"Think before you Speak" it's good advice Sarah & it can help you avoid Cheap Political Stunts.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Dog gone socialists, commies, and rotten government bureaucrats running my life.
So, will Huffpo now get reported to the snitch line?
I don't understand why I need "insurance" for planned medical care, unless I think I'm getting some kind of a deal. How could that be? If everyone needs an exam, and we all pay into the insurance, doesn't the overhead of insurance and forms just drive costs up?
We're certainly not going to get an exam any cheaper than simply paying cash for it during the visit. Ask any doctor about that.
Catastrophic health insurance, I understand. Planned health "insurance" is an oxymoron. Planned uncertainty??
"The dialogue between elected representatives and constituents is at the heart of our democracy and plays an integral role in assuring that the legislation we write reflects the genuine needs and concerns of the people (baloney, you mean lobbyists and pharmaceutical companies) we represent"
I hate insurance. Let's be perfectly clear about that. I think of it as a form of extortion. "You don't have health insurance? Oh, no. What if something bad should happen to you?" Sounds just like muscle coming around to collect for the mob, to me.
Having said that, since it is a necessary evil, let's at least let government play along nonprofit, to keep the for-profit thieves a tiny bit honest, eh?
"its better to have it and not needed it then to needed it and not have it."
but send us your dues i mean premiums cause went you have it and need it well we will just drop you with a smile and we are sorry but it seems that theres a little discrepancy in your coverage. but thank you for paying as our CEO COO and CFO need the bonus,
So, he claimed that a health committee would determine what kind of treatments can be covered, which directly implies rationing, killing granny, etc. etc. What the committee in question does, in fact, is determine the minimum allowable coverage. While he implies government will ration health care, he ignores private insurance currently doing that very thing. He lied. Willingly and knowingly and with a straight face. Why? Because he represents large insurance corporations and wealthy interests and not the people of his state.
Nothing in the article supports Mr. Boehner's claims, or you would have pointed to specific examples rather than making a broad (and obviously false) claim, anotheramerican.
Thanks for the quotes. I read it the first time. Contrary to your opinion, Boehner's statement does not imply rationing, killing granny, etc. He simply makes a true statement about Obamacare and you have added your own implications.
75% of Americans like their private health care and for good reason. It works (even though it is expensive). It is lefty fear mongering to imply that most people with insurance are being denied claims when the vast majority are being served very well.
Just because Boehner did not include in his statements MMFAs "other side of the story" does not make him a liar. If you use that argument but put the shoe on the other foot, most of what Obama says about healthcare would also be guilty of the "lies" because Obama does not stated the objections raised by Boehner. MMFA accusing Boehner (and other conservatives) of falsehood by omission is one of their old tricks so they can spout the leftist line. Some people (ahem) fall for it every time.
You are going off the deep end by claiming Boehner represents the large insurance corporations and wealthy interests and not the people of his State. That is simply a typical leftist rant and in my view, a lazy argument because it is all emotion and no fact.
I find it rather funny by claiming that the statements of Boehner are backed up by MMFA's own research are somehow not enough proof for you. However it is a nice try at deflection when you have not proved in anyway that Boehner uttered any falsehood.
Here's a fact, most of his campaign financing comes from "Insurance" with "Health" in 4th place. I'm sure that has nothing to do with his decision making and is probably just typical leftist rant.
Career Campaign Finance Numbers: John Boehner
I noticed you didn't add in the money insurance companies gave to the Dems.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
As liberal protesters marched outside, Sen. Max Baucus sat down inside a San Francisco mansion for a dinner of chicken cordon bleu and a discussion of landmark health-care legislation under consideration by his Senate Finance Committee.
At the table on May 26 were about 20 donors willing to fork over $10,000 or more to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, including executives of major insurance companies, hospitals and other health-care firms...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/20/AR2009072003363.html
'The official [Secretary] will decide what constitutes "excessive," "deficient," and "efficient" payments and services.'
That means the Secretary can say "I'll pay for this" and "I won't pay for that". That is a life and death decision.
He is the Death Panel.
But, but, but insurance companies say the same thing. But they do not march into your home at the point of a gun and take the money a sensible person would put into an HSA and then later refuse to give it back when you need it. From a private plan, there is appeal to the state insurance commission. From the HR3200 plan, there is no appeal. Those are two critical differences.
The Death Panel gets more certain, after 5 years when the Secretary has driven all the private insurance companies out of business. He needs to do this to expand his base of contributors because the baby boom is expanding his base of beneficiaries faster than he can raise taxes to cover their medical needs. A good assumption is sometime after the 5 year mark (at which point the Secretary can set prices and content of public and private insurance) all private insurance will disappear and we'll have single payer, which is what President Obama has said he wants all along.
Then the Death Panel is even more real. There would then be national questions from which no one could escape. Will Chemotherapy be given to a 104 year old person? What age will the cutoff be? Will the cutoff age be lowered because costs are too high? What choice would a person then have if only the government offered insurance and the Secretary says "No Chemo after 77"? And the Secretary has that power in HR3200. Furthermore, there is no judicial review.
For those who have read HR3200 AND understand it, please explain to a LOT of people what is wrong with these conclusions.
Here are two other issues that are not in HR3200. 2 years from now, when the first Amendment to HR3200 is passed by Congress and signed into law, how could all of this change? Now that the government is running health care what do you think our government will be doing with all that money that flows into program that isn't spent right away? [Hint, look at SS and Medicare]
MMFA is wrong, Boehner doesn't have the whole picture, and neither do I. But I sure have more than I'm comfortable with.
HR3200 is a very bad law.
Vote NO on HR3200.
Ask your doctor.
Well, we agree on one thing.
You and Sarah Palin can both sit in your log cabin in Alaska explaining to each other why Obama wants to kill old people and why all these doctors around the country have just been looking for their chance to put these old people to sleep against their will. There is so much wrong with your conclusions, but it is actually your suppositions that are the root of your problem.
I think it was rightOn on another thread that suggested that there wasn't anyone crazy enough to believe this "death panel" nonsense. Well, here's one for you. He buys it hook, line, and sinker.