Myths and falsehoods about health care reform
Media Matters for America identifies and debunks 14 myths and falsehoods surrounding the health care reform debate.
MYTH 1: There is no health care crisis
CLAIM: The health care system currently works fine, and only a purportedly small number of uninsured people would benefit from reform.
- RUSH LIMBAUGH: "There really isn't a crisis in health care in this country. The crisis in health care that -- if you wanna say, that does exist -- is the fear that a major illness or catastrophe could wipe you out, which isn't gonna change. In fact, the odds of you being wiped out by a catastrophe or accident once the government gets started running this stuff is greater than if the private sector -- but day-to-day, there's no health care crisis in this country. You can get it. So, it isn't about health care, per se. This is just about gaining control, taking money, and controlling people's lives, and wiping out Republicans -- a nice cherry on top." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/18/09]
- STEVE 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?" [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 7/30/09]
REALITY: Roughly 25 million Americans were underinsured in 2007. According to Cathy Schoen, senior vice president of The Commonwealth Fund, "From 2003 to 2007, the number of adults who were insured all year but were underinsured increased by 60 percent. Based on those who incur high out-of-pocket costs relative to their income not counting premiums despite having coverage all year, an estimated 25 million adults under age 65 were underinsured in 2007." [Testimony from Schoen before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, 2/24/09]
The underinsured do not receive adequate care and face financial hardship. 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." [Schoen testimony, 2/24/09]
Insurance companies currently rescind policies when their insured customers need treatment. 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. ... The health insurance industry doesn't deny that people are rejected or charged higher premiums because of pre-existing conditions."
MYTH 2: Health care reform will impose rationing
CLAIM: Progressive health care reform proposals will introduce a system of "rationing" into American medicine.
- SEAN HANNITY: "We're gonna have a government rationing body that tells women with breast cancer, 'You're dead.' It's a death sentence." [Fox News' Hannity, 6/19/09]
- MICHELLE MALKIN: "Big Nanny Democrats want to ration health care for everyone in America -- except those who break our immigration laws." [Malkin column, 7/22/09]
REALITY: Insurance companies already ration care. Insurance companies acknowledge that they ration care, restricting coverage of procedures and tests like MRIs and CAT scans and denying coverage for pre-existing medical conditions.
Sanjay Gupta: "I can tell you, as a practicing physician ... who deals with this on a daily basis, rationing does occur all the time." As Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN's chief medical correspondent, explained: "[P]eople always say, 'Is there going to be rationed care?' And I can tell you, as a practicing physician, as someone who deals with this on a daily basis, rationing does occur all the time. I mean, I was in the clinic this past week. And I -- you know, at the end of clinic, I get all this paperwork that basically says, 'Justify why you're doing such and such procedure. Justify why you're ordering such and such test.' And if the justification is inadequate, the answer comes back, 'Well, that's not going to be covered.' Which basically is saying that the patient is going to have to pay for it on their own, which is, in essence, is what rationing is, in so many ways." [CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, 8/12/09]
Insurance companies ration care by rescinding coverage. As former senior executive at CIGNA health insurance company Wendell Potter explained in June 24 Senate testimony, insurance companies restrict or deny coverage by rescinding health insurance policies on the grounds that people had undisclosed pre-existing conditions. President Obama recently cited one such example, noting that "[a] woman from Texas was diagnosed with an aggressive form of breast cancer, was scheduled for a double mastectomy. Three days before surgery ... the insurance company canceled the policy, in part because she forgot to declare a case of acne. ... By the time she had her insurance reinstated, the cancer had more than doubled in size."
MYTH 3: Health care reform provides for euthanasia, "death panel"
CLAIM: House health care reform bill mandates end-of-life counseling that will pressure seniors to end their lives.
- BETSY McCAUGHEY: "And one of the most shocking things I found in this bill, and there were many, is on Page 425, where the Congress would make it mandatory -- absolutely require -- that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner, how to decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go in to hospice care. And by the way, the bill expressly says that if you get sick somewhere in that five-year period -- if you get a cancer diagnosis, for example -- you have to go through that session again. All to do what's in society's best interest or your family's best interest and cut your life short. These are such sacred issues of life and death. Government should have nothing to do with this." [FredThompsonShow.com, interview archives, 7/16/09]
- HANNITY: "Now, she [McCaughey] actually uncovered in this bill a particularly outrageous provision -- and by the way, there will be more to come in the Obamacare plan. According to McCaughey, she's saying under the House provision and the House version, perfectly healthy senior citizens are going to be forced to undergo, quote, 'end of life counseling,' apparently to encourage them to check out before their time is up." [ABC Radio Networks and Premiere Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show, 7/17/09]
REALITY: Advance care planning is not mandatory in the House health care bill. Section 1233 of America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 -- which includes "Page 425" -- 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: McCaughey's claim that seniors would be encouraged to end their lives "is an outright distortion." "McCaughey incorrectly states that the bill would require Medicare patients to have these counseling sessions and she is suggesting that the government is somehow trying to interfere with a very personal decision. And her 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]
CLAIM: Health care reform would establish a "death panel."
- GLENN BECK: "So, why is there no more discussion than there is on Sarah Palin and what she said over the weekend that there would be ... [a] death panel for her son Trig? That's quite a statement. I believe it to be true, but that's quite a statement." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, 8/10/09]
- BRIAN KILMEADE: "[E]veryone's talking about seniors, and they're talking about the middle class and affordable health care. If the upper class is paying for the next two classes, and are seniors going to be in front of a death panel? And then just as you think, 'OK, that's ridiculous,' then you realize there's provisions in there that seniors in the last lap of their life will be sitting there going to a panel, possibly discussing what the best thing for them is." [Fox & Friends, 8/10/09]
REALITY: "Death panel" claims have been conclusively discredited. In one of more than 40 media reports debunking claims of euthanasia and "death panels," PolitiFact wrote: "We've looked at the inflammatory claims that the health care bill encourages euthanasia. It doesn't. There's certainly no 'death board' that determines the worthiness of individuals to receive care. ... [Palin] said that the Democratic plan will ration care and 'my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care.' Palin's statement sounds more like a science fiction movie (Soylent Green, anyone?) than part of an actual bill before Congress. We rate her statement Pants on Fire!" [PolitiFact.com, 8/10/09]
MYTH 4: Health care reform legislation will cover undocumented immigrants
CLAIM: Under health care reform, you will be denied care, and it will be given to undocumented immigrants instead.
- DICK MORRIS: "The point about these death panels is that if you restrict the amount -- the lifesaving surgeries, and you tell someone, no, you can't have that bypass surgery -- but I'm going to die if I don't have it. Well, here's the grief counselor. That will happen. And whether they fund the grief counselor or the end-of-life counselor or not, the rationing will take place when they tell you, no, you can't have the surgery because we have to give it to a 40-year-old illegal immigrant instead." [Hannity, 8/17/09]
REALITY: House bill stipulates that those "not lawfully present" may not receive subsidies to purchase insurance. Under the "Individual Affordability Credits" section of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009:
SEC. 242. AFFORDABLE CREDIT ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.
(a) DEFINITION. --
(1) IN GENERAL. -- For purposes of this division, the term ''affordable credit eligible individual'' means, subject to subsection (b), an individual who is lawfully present in a State in the United States (other than as a nonimmigrant described in a subparagraph (excluding subparagraphs (K), (T), (U), and (V)) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) --
[...]
SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
Senate HELP bill excludes those "not lawfully present" from federal funding. Under the "Making Coverage Affordable" section of the Affordable Health Choices Act:
(h) NO FEDERAL FUNDING. -- Nothing in this Act shall allow Federal payments for individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
MYTH 5: Health care reform will raise your taxes
CLAIM: Health care reform would be funded by broad-based tax increases.
- MARA LIASSON: "But the fact is, what have they been hearing? It has a $1 trillion price tag over 10 years, it's going to raise your taxes. I think --
CHRIS WALLACE: "Well, aren't those both true?" [Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, 8/2/09]
REALITY: The surtax in House bill applies only to income exceeding $350,000 per year for joint filers. The House health care legislation would establish a 1 percent tax on joint income exceeding $350,000 but not greater than $500,000 per year; a 1.5 percent tax on joint income exceeding $500,000 but not greater than $1 million per year; and a 5.4 percent tax on joint income exceeding $1 million per year. Single filers would be subject to the surtax starting at income exceeding $280,000 per year. In a July 15 Huffington Post piece, Rep. George Miller (D-CA) stated that "[o]nly the highest earning 1.2 percent of American households will pay a surcharge."
MYTH 6: Health care reform would tax all small businesses
CLAIM: The House Democrats' bill will raise income taxes on small businesses.
- Wall Street Journal editorial: "The health-care bill is a jobs killer, with its 5.4-percentage point income surtax that would hit small business especially hard." [Wall Street Journal, 8/9/09]
REALITY: Ways and Means committee stated that according to JCT, only 4.1 percent of small-business owners would be affected by surtax. The legislation would establish a 1 percent tax on joint income exceeding $350,000 but not greater than $500,000 per year; a 1.5 percent tax on joint income exceeding $500,000 but not greater than $1 million per year; and a 5.4 percent tax on joint income exceeding $1 million per year. Single filers would be subject to the surtax starting at income exceeding $280,000 per year. The House Ways and Means Committee stated, "Using the broadest definition of a small business owner (i.e., any individual with as little as $1 of small business income), the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that only 4.1% of all small business owners would be affected by the health care surcharge."
CLAIM: House Democrats' bill would subject all small businesses to an 8 percent payroll tax as a penalty for not providing insurance to employees.
- GRETCHEN CARLSON: "[T]he real victim, potentially, of this health care reform ... is the small business owner. ... [T]hey are going to be hit potentially with this health care reform if they don't offer health care to their employees -- an 8 percent penalty on them." [Fox & Friends, 7/16/09]
REALITY: Companies with annual payrolls of less than $250,000 would pay no penalty under the House bill. The House bill would establish a 2 percent payroll penalty for employers with combined payroll between $250,000 to $300,000 that don't offer health insurance to employees; a 4 percent penalty for employers with $300,000 to $350,000 in payroll; a 6 percent penalty for employers with $350,000 to $400,000 in payroll; and an 8 percent penalty for companies with annual payrolls exceeding $400,000. Additionally, the bill establishes tax credits for small-business employers that do provide health care.
MYTH 7: Health care reform would add $1 trillion-plus to deficit
CLAIM: Health care reform "would add around $1 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years."
- AP: "But even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that none of the health plans pending on Capitol Hill would control long-term spending, and that ones with the elements Obama wants would add around $1 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years." [Associated Press, 8/3/09]
- Karl Rove claimed that House Democrats are "planning on a 1 trillion, 420 billion -- 420 million dollar price tag of additional spending over the next 10 years, and what they've done is, today, supposedly -- we haven't seen the details -- but they've trimmed that by 10 percent. So we're only going to beggar ourselves by $900 billion over the next decade and that's assuming they get all of the tax increases and all of the Medicare cuts that are built into this." [Hannity, 7/29/09]
REALITY: CBO found that House bill would increase the federal budget deficit by $239 billion over 10 years -- not $1 trillion. In a July 17 cost estimate of the bill as introduced, the CBO explained that its "estimate reflects a projected 10-year cost of the bill's insurance coverage provisions of $1,042 billion, partly offset by net spending changes that CBO estimates would save $219 billion over the same period, and by revenue provisions that JCT estimates would increase federal revenues by about $583 billion over those 10 years." CBO thus concluded the legislation "would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period." The CBO has not released full cost estimates of the health care reform proposals being considered by the Senate.
MYTH 8: House bill would ban private individual insurance
CLAIM: House health care reform bill would "outlaw individual private coverage."
- An Investor's Business Daily editorial falsely claimed that the House bill includes "a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal." The editorial later stated that the "provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage." [IBD, 7/15/09]
- HANNITY: "The one thing that we do know in the health care bill is that it's gonna literally -- the bill says -- Investor's Business Daily had an article today -- and the bill says that if you don't have your insurance the year this legislation is implemented, you can't have a private insurance company. So that will end -- hang on -- that will end private insurance." [Hannity, 7/16/09]
REALITY: The bill does not "outlaw" private individual insurance. 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 private 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. As Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius noted, the assertion "that individuals would no longer be able to keep their personal coverage" is "just not accurate. It's not in any version of the House bill; it's not in the Senate bill." [MSNBC's Morning Joe, 7/22/09]
MYTH 9: Obama said he didn't read House bill
CLAIM: Obama "admitted" that he has not read the House health care reform bill.
- Limbaugh asserted that Obama "doesn't know what's in the bill! He admits he doesn't know." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 7/21/09]
- "Obama Admits He's 'Not Familiar' With House Bill" [Heritage Foundation, 7/21/09]
- HANNITY: "The president even admitted before the press conference -- the day before -- he hadn't read the bill." [Hannity, 7/24/09]
REALITY: Obama actually said he was "not familiar" with opponents' false talking point that bill would ban private individual insurance. During a July 20 conference call, a blogger asked Obama to comment on the claim made in the July 15 IBD editorial -- which is false -- that the bill, in the blogger's words, "will make individual private medical insurance illegal." Obama responded, "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you're talking about."
MYTH 10: Co-ops are an adequate substitute for a public option
CLAIM: The co-op "compromise" eliminates the need for the public option.
REALITY: Progressive experts argue public plan is necessary for successful reform. Numerous media figures and outlets have characterized Sen. Kent Conrad's (D-ND) cooperative health insurance proposal as a "compromise," "hybrid," or bipartisan "alternative" to a public insurance option without noting the view by progressive experts that a public option is necessary for health care reform to be successful and that any departure from that will result in the failure of reform efforts. These experts dispute suggestions that Conrad's co-op proposal is a plausible midway point between competing methods of addressing health care reform, because, they say, it precludes a fundamental component of effective reform: bargaining power against the health care industry. For example, former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich described the co-op proposal as a "bamboozle" and said that "[n]onprofit health-care cooperatives won't have any real bargaining leverage to get lower prices because they'll be too small and too numerous. Pharma and Insurance know they can roll them. That's why the Conrad compromise is getting a good reception from across the aisle." And University of California-Berkeley professor Jacob Hacker argued that Conrad "has offered no reason to think that the cooperatives he envisions could do any of the crucial things that a competing public plan must do." Additionally, ABC's Charles Gibson reported that "several health care experts" have said, in Gibson's words, "[I]f you take out the public option in terms of insurance, there's going to be no restraints on the cost of insurance." [ABC's World News with Charles Gibson, 8/17/09]
MYTH 11: Obama is pushing a system like the U.K. and Canada
CLAIM: Obama is pushing a single-payer system like Canada's or a nationalized health care system like the United Kingdom's.
- BRET BAIER: "President Obama spent a good deal of time at that news conference [on June 23] talking about health care reform, and Canada's medical system has been cited as a possible model." [Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier, 6/29/09]
- Hannity said, "I think Obama certainly" wants a Canadian-style "single-payer system." [Hannity, 7/20/09]
- CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: "[Obama]'s a man who's expressed ... a radical domestic agenda, which involves, as he puts it every time, a holy trinity of health care reform, by which he means nationalizing health care. ... And this is all in the service of leveling the differences between rich and poor and leveling the differences between classes." [Special Report, 4/29/09]
- JOE SCARBOROUGH: "Of course -- of course it's -- not only is it naïve, it's reckless to suggest that in the midst of a banking crisis that may have a $2 trillion price tag that you are going to choose this time to nationalize health care with a $635 billion down payment." [Morning Joe, 3/9/09]
REALITY: Obama has rejected Canadian-style single-payer system and U.K.-style nationalized health care. During a March 26 online town hall discussion, Obama was asked: "Why can we not have a universal health care system, like many European countries, where people are treated based on needs rather than financial resources?" He replied, in part, "I actually want a universal health care system," adding that rather than adopting a "single-payer system" like Canada's, "what I think we should do is to build on the system that we have and fill some of these gaps." Indeed, Obama has embraced the creation of a federally funded "public plan" as one of many insurance options available in the health care market, not the sole option, as in "single payer" systems such as Canada. And as PolitiFact.com noted in a March 5 post, "Obama's plan leaves in place the private health care system, but seeks to expand it to the uninsured" and "the plan is very different from some European-style health systems where the government owns health clinics and employs doctors," as in the United Kingdom.
MYTH 12: Obama, Dems pushing "socialized medicine"
CLAIM: Health care reform proposals are socialist and will lead to socialized medicine.
- GLENN BECK: "President Obama has his massive $1.5 trillion health care plan. It's hogging up the news cycle. The Republicans and, you know, a lot of people are starting to say, 'Isn't this socialist here? I mean, this is pretty crazy.' The answer to me on that one is really easy: Yep, it's good old socialism. You know, pretty much raping the pocketbooks of the rich to give to the poor. I think that's socialism." [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 7/21/09]
- LIMBAUGH: "The Obama budget also funds the relentless drive toward socialized medicine. And all that is just the beginning. The way to look at this budget is not with an economic lens, it is with a philosophical one. Liberals want to make America -- remake it in their image. And this is how you will pay for it." ["Rush's Morning Update," 2/27/09]
- Guest-hosting The O'Reilly Factor, Laura Ingraham stated: "Powerful arguments against socialized medicine have been around not for months, but for decades. Ronald Reagan was saying this back in 1961." After playing a clip from Reagan's recording, Ingraham added, "I have to believe that Ronald Reagan is smiling down on these town hall forums where law abiding and hard-working Americans are standing up for freedom." [Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, 8/14/09]
REALITY: Conservatives have trotted out "socialized medicine" smear for 75 years -- and it's never been true. Numerous conservative media figures have revived the "socialized medicine" smear to undermine the efforts of Obama and congressional Democrats, most recently by promoting Ronald Reagan's 1961 attacks on a legislative precursor to Medicare. But as the Urban Institute wrote in an April 2008 analysis, "socialized medicine involves government financing and direct provision of health care services," and therefore, recent progressive health-care reform proposals do not "fit this description." The analysis also noted: "Similar rhetoric was used to defeat national health care reform proposals in the 1990s and, with less success, to argue against the creation of Medicare in the 1960s." Indeed, a Media Matters for America analysis found that dating as far back as the 1930s -- with respect to at least 16 different reform initiatives including President Franklin D. Roosevelt's consideration of government health insurance when crafting the 1935 Social Security bill; President Lyndon Johnson's 1965 legislation establishing Medicare; and the health-care initiative by President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary Clinton in 1993 and 1994 -- conservatives have attempted to smear those proposals by calling them "socialized medicine" or a step toward that purportedly inevitable result.
MYTH 13: Prominent opponents of health care reform are credible
CLAIM: Betsy McCaughey is a credible health care expert.
- JOHN ROBERTS: "Former New York Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey is a long-time expert in public health and is currently the chairwoman of an advocacy group for patient safety." [CNN's American Morning, 6/24/09]
- ELIZABETH MacDONALD: "I want to go to my next guest. She's terrific. We're going to go fair and balanced now. She's Betsy McCaughey. She says that cutting health-care costs will only lead to worse care not better. Betsy is founder and chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infectious Deaths." [Fox Business' Cavuto, 5/11/09]
REALITY: Betsy McCaughey is a serial misinformer who has perpetuated numerous falsehoods about health care reform. The Atlantic's James Fallows has pointed to McCaughey as an example of someone for whom there "seems to be almost no extremity of being proven wrong which disqualifies" her from being given a platform in the media. Most recently, McCaughey falsely claimed that the House health care reform bill would "absolutely require" end-of-life counseling for seniors on Medicare "that will tell them how to end their life sooner" -- a claim that many in the media repeated. McCaughey repeatedly falsely claimed that the Senate HELP committee's bill "basically" "pushes everyone into an HMO-style plan." Additionally, McCaughey concocted the false claim, which was nonetheless widely repeated in the media, that a health IT provision in the economic recovery act enabled government bureaucrats to "monitor treatments" or restrict what "your doctor is doing" with regard to patient care. On multiple occasions, after being challenged on her false claims about health care legislation, McCaughey reportedly insisted that she was right about the ultimate effect of a bill despite misrepresenting what it actually said. McCaughey's influence over the health care debate is not new. As Fallows has written, "In the early 1990s McCaughey single-handedly did a phenomenal amount to distort discussion of health-care policy and derail the Clinton health bill. She did so through an entirely fictitious argument about what the bill would do."
CLAIM: Rick Scott is a credible health care expert.
REALITY: Rick Scott was chairman of a scandal-plagued hospital firm. Scott has repeatedly been quoted by CNN, Fox News, and The Wall Street Journal opposing Democrats' health care reform efforts. Frequently, media outlets that have hosted or quoted Scott have failed to note that he resigned as chairman of the nation's largest for-profit health care company in 1997 amid a federal Medicare fraud investigation. According to a July 26, 1997, Los Angeles Times article, Scott resigned from his former position as chairman of Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. "amid a massive federal investigation into the Medicare billing, physician recruiting and home-care practices of" Columbia/HCA, "the nation's largest for-profit health care company." According to a December 18, 2002, Justice Department press release describing a tentative settlement with HCA to resolve civil litigation, "When added to the prior civil and criminal settlements reached in 2000, this settlement would bring the government's total recoveries from HCA to approximately $1.7 billion." Media Matters has also documented repeated instances in which media outlets and figures have uncritically repeated or aired Scott's health care misinformation, including that of his advocacy organization, Conservatives for Patients' Rights.
CLAIM: Newt Gingrich is a credible health care expert.
REALITY: Newt Gingrich has a financial stake in opposing Democrats' reform proposals. Gingrich has been quoted by Politico opposing the public plan, but Politico did not explain that his Center for Health Transformation is a for-profit entity that receives annual membership fees from several major health insurance companies, which have a direct interest in whether a public insurance plan is part of health care reform. Moreover, Gingrich himself reportedly profits from his involvement with the group. Indeed, the group's website notes that the "Center for Health Transformation and The Gingrich Group are corporate for-profit organizations not affiliated with any other corporation or organization" [emphasis added]. Gingrich has also repeatedly spread misinformation about health care reform.
MYTH 14: Government can't run a health care program
CLAIM: Medicare has failed, and so the government can't be trusted to "run health care."
- HANNITY: "But why would you have so much faith, trust, hope, and confidence? Are you happy when you go to the DMV? Are you happy with the Postal Service? Social Security is bankrupt. Medicare is bankrupt. Why do people have faith that the government can run health care?" [Hannity, 7/20/09, from the Nexis database]
REALITY: Medicare costs have risen more slowly than private insurance. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman noted, "since 1970 Medicare costs per beneficiary have risen at an annual rate of 8.8% -- but insurance premiums have risen at an annual rate of 9.9%. The rise in Medicare costs is just part of the overall rise in health care spending. And in fact Medicare spending has lagged private spending: if insurance premiums had risen 'only' as much as Medicare spending, they'd be 1/3 lower than they are."
Medicare is extremely popular. A May 2009 Commonwealth Fund study concluded that "elderly Medicare beneficiaries reported greater overall satisfaction with their health coverage, better access to care, and fewer problems paying medical bills than people covered by employer-sponsored plans." And as Mark Blumenthal wrote for National Journal, a survey by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services found that in 2007, "56 percent of enrollees in traditional fee-for-service Medicare give their 'health plan' a rating of 9 or 10 on a 0-10 scale. Similarly, 60 percent of seniors enrolled in Medicare Managed Care rated their plans a 9 or 10. But according to the CAHPS [Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems ] surveys compiled by HHS, only 40 percent of Americans enrolled in private health insurance gave their plans a 9 or 10 rating." Blumenthal added, "More importantly, the higher scores for Medicare are based on perceptions of better access to care. More than two thirds (70 percent) of traditional Medicare enrollees say they 'always' get access to needed care (appointments with specialists or other necessary tests and treatment), compared with 63 percent in Medicare managed care plans and only 51 percent of those with private insurance."
The government currently provides the "best care anywhere." In a 2005 Washington Monthly article headlined "The Best Care Anywhere," Philip Longman wrote of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA): "Outside experts agree that the VHA has become an industry leader in its safety and quality measures. Dr. Donald M. Berwick, president of the Institute for Health Care Improvement and one of the nation's top health-care quality experts, praises the VHA's information technology as 'spectacular.' The venerable Institute of Medicine notes that the VHA's 'integrated health information system, including its framework for using performance measures to improve quality, is considered one of the best in the nation.' "
If you were to invest in all health insurance companies and grab financial guides for each and every one of them you'd realize that what you had done wasn't very smart because dividend payouts are often far below the industrial average because are profits are razor thin. For those who think the health insurance industry is somehow hiding all of it's profits in one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country, all you have to do it look at what the executives (especially the CEO's) make on bonuses, severances, pensions and pay every year. CEO's make significantly less money than the median for company leaders. Look through here if you wish to what health care CEO's earned in compensation and you'll notice they're near the bottom http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/22/executive-pay-ceo-leadership-compensation-best-boss-09-ceo_land.html
Why are insurance premiums so high? Because health care costs an arm and leg these days. Lawsuits and litigation associated with that is at least a 1/3 of it. Another is the shear quantity of pointless tests physicians like to do to earn an extra buck. If you go to the emergency room because of an allergic reaction to Strawberries(and they know it's an allergic reaction) they'll first off give you all the necessary treatment to end the reaction, then they'll keep you in observation for 2 or 3 days(even though your bp,heart rate, and blood panels all check out). Often your tonsils will swell up because of the reaction and they'll just pulls those, often without asking the patient first, you'll get MRI's and CT's, tons of blood tests all for an allergic reaction that thirty years ago would have cost inflation adjusted $5000 or less. Modern day all the unnecessary work ends up costing $50000 or more with the insurance company soaking up 95% of the cost(since it's an emergency room visit everything is covered except in the most extreme cases and in then we sue for doing $200k worth of work for no medical reason aka just to make a lot money). So your premiums go up.
Medical expenses are huge because hospitals, physicians and their executives are greedy. They jack up the cost because they know they can do it, you might like to blame the suppliers who give them their equipment, but regulation controls the quality of the products they produce and medical suppliers like Medline try their hardest to keep costs low and quality high, it's a competitive market and if one of them gouged their prices no one would buy and they'd go out of business. On the other hand in many cities they have to go to the closest hospital because when it's an emergency or it's serious you need to get there as quickly as possible so ambulances will send you to the closest one. Hospitals can charge whatever they want. Lawrence, Kansas city of 90,000 where I was born and raised has a hospital Lawrence Memorial Hospital, their CEO makes more money than the highest paid health insurance CEO.
So if you have anyone to blame, blame it on greedy hospitals not on the health insurance companies with smaller cash pools than car insurance companies and 10X the cost. The public option would push most of us into solvency, millions of us would be out of jobs and health care would cost exactly the same, except instead everyone pays it out of their pockets. Consumer healthcare expenses are over 16% of the GDP and Medicare and Medicaid is over 5%. When health insurances meager profits dry up and they go bankrupt because the public option is "free" and easy to switch to and nothing is done about hospitals gouging their services that means healthcare spending will become over half of our national budget and it'll either crush the economy or taxes will more than double. For people who work in health insurance irregardless of political leanings(I am a liberal independent on all issues but this) the prospect is truly frightening.
Is it really that difficult for our media to hold the politicians that are lying accountable ??
So you must believe that there are death panels, single-payer system, gov't takeover of healthcare and the gov't wants to kill granny, is that right?
Here's it's forty-five million who don't get care. In Scotland, it's just a single anecdote about someone who hasn't actually been denied care.
Also, Mr. McFear-hater, Medicare has never rationed care for anyone's grandfather. Why would we start doing that now?
I don't know, if my taxes go up (because I'm filthy rich!), but my insurance premiums go down, is that really worse? If poor people get coverage and hospitals no longer have to raise me fees to cover the cost of indigent care, is that really worse? If my insurance goes up by 5% a year instead of the 20% increase I'm facing this year, is that really worse?
Stop being so angry and fearful. Un-seize your brain.
Unless you have that, you're crap and talking out of your behind. My fiance grew up under the NHS and has been a champ at debunking this kind of garbage during this whole debate.
That's a lie.
So is Obama spreading myths?
Insurance premiums continue to rise The Business Journal of Milwaukee
Bizjournals.com - 1 hour ago
Family health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored insurance has increased 119 percent since 1999, and could increase another 94 percent to an average $23842 per family by 2020, according to a new analysis by the Commonwealth Fund.
http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2009/08/17/daily86.html
Myth 2: MMfA doesn't debunk the argument that gov healthcare will "ration", it simply gives the FALSE "well he does it to!!!" argument about private insurance. But private insurance companies DO NOT GIVE CARE, they simply cover expenses of the care received. So, if my company denies an MRI, I can STILL pay for it out of pocket and receive one, if I so wish. Until the insurance companies can literally prevent me from getting care regardless of whether I can pay for it or not, they are NOT rationing.
Myth 3: Correct, there are not "death panels" mandated, "death panel" is an egregious exagerration.
Myth 4: Cool, nice to see citizenship will start meaning something.
Myth 5: People who make good money don't count in "your". I get it.
Myth 6: The quote MMfA used did not say "all".
Myth 7: NOBODY knows the answer to this one, so while saying it will add $1 trillion to the deficit isn't true, neither is saying "it won't". Those who argue that the planned healthcare reform will stay on-budget do NOT have history on their side.
Myth 8: Sebelius and MMfA are being misleading at best. While your private insurance will not be immediately yanked away (unless your employer switches), you will not be able to modify your insurance in the future or select another choice besides the government program...this will undoubtedly lead to everyone being on the gov program eventually as people need different plans as their economic and health situation changes.
Myth 9: Absolutely true, Obama was responding to a false assertion by a reporter, not saying he didn't read the bill.
Myth 10: "Progressive experts" opinion is only "true" in progressiveland.
Myth 11: Acknowledged that the USA's system will not be exactly like Canada's or Britain's in its concept.
Myth 12: The public plan is socialized medicine. We have socialized highways, fire control, policing, etc...so the fact that it's "socialized" is irrelevant to the greater point.
Myth 13: Cherrypicking bad apples. The media that hosted them are at fault...but there are a lot of progressives running around believing what every blogger on HuffPo and DKos write, whether they're "qualified" or not.
Myth 14: Same VHA that had a hospital treating war wounded with crumbling paint and walls? How's Medicare doing these days, solvency-wise?
Well, I guess there will be some savings when you're not paying for the 30% overhead/profits to the insurance company vampires. (Medicare's overhead - 3-4%)
And then there will be even more savings when people opt out of Medicare Part D which is a yearly $100 billion gift to the insurance company pirahnas.
And then you could move onto to prescription drugs, which would save millions if we were allowed to negotiate prices, something that the Republicans didn't include in the Prescription Drug Benefit bill.
And then there are the savings of people actually being HEALTHIER due to having access to preventative care.
There it is.
Of course, you're assuming that the politicians (be they GOP or Dem) will adequately fund it and run it efficiently.
Las Vegas allows casinos to make only a 20% profit.
Government may be "bad" and "inept" (which is become a tired right-wing canard), but at least it won't be subsidizing CEO salaries and HMO profits.
Is that what you're defending?
Or, answer this (courtesy of Rep. Weinger to Mornin' Joe) - What do insurance companies bring to the table in regards to medical care?
Make up your mind.
So now you want government regulating the proft margin of the insurance industry? So, you are admitting that the free market does not police itself? Interesting.
So what exactly did dexteritas prove here? Can you explain?
And, you may ask, how do we get off that $24.7T hook? Well, we can get off of a lot of it by letting the zombie banks -- those which, if their assets are HONESTLY valued, are insolvent -- die and be taken over by the FDIC and sold off, rather than artificially propping them up so that the losses are even greater when they do finally collapse.
AND also because of Bush's Medicare D debacle. :)
That's why. But it can be fixed. And it's still cheaper than private plans.
THAT myth is proven false every day here at MMfA. :-)
Of course their analysis wouldn't be biased?
A biased source can put forward actual facts. This happens all the time on the left. Lefties such as myself love facts and intellectual stuff. You should see all the books I read while riding in my limo spreading Dijon mustard on my bread. Facts are liberal currency. Cons can't compete with this. They try a different tact, usually involving smearing, jingoism, and nationalism. Both can be effective. We just choose to stick to facts, for better or worse.
The crisis for those who are insured is that they are paying twice as much as they need to (compared to other advanced countries). Also, insured people often get dumped by insurance companies which then leads to a rather large personal crisis. And lets not forget the cost of health care is getting worse by the year and threatens the financial stability of this country.
Good grief.
"Everyone forced into the govt plan"? Never do you mention that health insurers already do all of these nasty evil things you mention that the gov't would do.
Good luck with that level of ignorance!!
From now on, I'll find a good link to Rep. Weiner (NY) He explains it better than anyone else.
2. Nor would a public option "give care." And your example about the MRI still holds true for you with your private insurance that you can keep (and likely pay lower premiums and deductibles for when out of control profiteering is curtailed by real competition), and so could I, if I were on the public option.
3 and 4. We agree. I give you credit for being at least somewhat reasonable. (And articulate. There aren't a lot of you on your team.)
5. Exactly what the President said when he was the Candidate.
6. You got us there.
7. Not a bad argument. While I'll give you that we don't know if it will "pay for itself," I do think it's pretty safe to say that "It will add $1 trillion to the budget" qualifies as a myth.
8. This is the part I'm most curious about. I've heard of no such language, but I'm willing to be enlightened.
9. And yet Hannity and Limbaugh & Co. continue to propagate this lie. Why? If the facts are on your side, why lie?
10. I admittedly don't know enough about this one to argue public option vs. co-ops. But I do agree with your myth-buster buster.
11. And yet...the right continues to make these comparisons. Even if only five of these were right (and it's looking more like 12), how is this not "bearing false witness"?
12. "...that it's "socialized" is irrelevant to the greater point." Not to Hannity and Rush.
13. We agree again. (Because this isn't a debate about what progressives believe, it's a debate about whether or not these are lies. This one is.)
14. A) As has bee pointed out, that's run by Dept. of Defense. The satisfaction of Veterans when it comes to their health care cannot be denied. B) Medicare is in trouble largely because of out of control costs. Let's get that sh!t under control.
So...that's a lot of lying that you totally agree is lying...and another batch of lies that you've failed to make a case for. I count three "up in the air." Out of fourteen. That's a whole lot of lying on the right!!
Myth 2 "But private insurance companies DO NOT GIVE CARE, they simply cover expenses of the care received."
The same thing applies to the program that is under consideration now. None of the bills actually suggest that treatments be forbidden, just that some will be paid for and others won't, the same as is going on now. If you want, you can pay for something yourself and no one will stop you unless it involves something like human sacrifice.
Myth 7 "Those who argue that the planned healthcare reform will stay on-budget do NOT have history on their side"
What history does show, however, is that Medicare has a better record of controlling costs than the insurance companies do. Remember the bit about 8.8 vs. 9.9 increase in costs over time?
And the argument that we shouldn't have universal health insurance because it will cost money really doesn't make any sense at all. If it were valid, we wouldn't be in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. If it were valid, we wouldn't be paying the military/industrial complex obscene sums of money. If it were valid, we wouldn't hire Border Patrol people. If it were valid, we wouldn't be paying IRS investigators. What all of these things have in common is that the cost of doing them is less than the cost of NOT doing them (with the exceptions of points 1 and 2). That also applies to medical care.
Myth 8 The bills make it clear that this will not happen. If it were, the insurance companies would be screaming from the rooftops about this and they aren't.
Myth 10 It isn't just the "progressive experts" who are arguing this. The history of medical co-ops' failure also makes the point inconvertible.
Myth 12 Socialized means you get a monthly paycheck from the government as your main source of income and that you can be fired at any time by the government. This does apply to police, most fire control, road maintenance crews, but not to medical personnel outside the military.
Myth 14 Walter Reed was never a VA hospital. When the excrement hit the ventilatory device, it was a privatized organization owned by two former Halliburton executives who had gotten the contract from the government and were proceeding to make themselves rich by firing maintenance workers and patient care staff. Until they got their hands on it, Walter Reed was a top notch organization. As for whether Medicare is solvent, how about the financial houses on Wall St. whose present condition is a result of lack of government oversight during the previous eight years? They're busted right now if the value of their assets were ever revealed. Medicare has some years left and can be improved.
Myth 2: True MMfA doesn't adequately address the actual myth, but you do not offer any instances of said rationing yourself and instead try to cast doubt on their argument. You seem to forget that some people cannot afford to pay out-of-pocket for needed services that they are denied coverage for by insurance companies, which in effect is rationed care, and it is well-known that insurance companies often employ shaky reasoning in denying coverage in order to save themselves money, such as through the infamous pre-existing condition excuse. At best, people who are denied coverage regardless of whether the reasoning is solid or not must pay fully for often expensive services or risk going without them.
Myth 5: In the context of the posted quote, she clearly is suggesting that the average viewer is going to see their taxes raised, a common conservative argument that once again is simply not true. You're trying to insinuate that Media Matters may in fact be expressing a bias against wealthier people, but that hardly seems warranted.
Myth 6: The title of this segment is not a quotation, and the quotations listed clearly are suggesting that small businesses in general will take a hit when it is again not true.
Myth 7: Actually, most government run portions of health care that exist now have not had any significant solvency problems until recently, and this is in fact another aspect of the underlying problem of our current health care system which this reform is attempting to address. That is, the rising costs of health care in general, which the government has to pay for in programs like medicare for all of its recipients.
Myth 8: Please point out where in the bill such provisions can be found, because if people cannot choose a private plan after the enactment of the bill and are forced into the public option as you say, what is the point of the Health Insurance Exchange established which offers private plans alongside the public one for individual and employer selection? And what about this segment from page 73 of HR 3200?
"SEC. 202. EXCHANGE-ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS AND EMPLOYERS.
(a) ACCESS TO COVERAGE.—In accordance with this section, all individuals are eligible to obtain coverage through enrollment in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan offered through the Health Insurance Exchange unless such individuals are enrolled in another qualified health benefits plan or other acceptable coverage."
I continue to read applicable sections in the bill and have yet to find anything as to what you are stating.
Myth 10: Just because they may be partisan opinions doesn't mean they are meaningless; it stands to reason that this "co-op" program meant as a compromise would probably not be as effective as a centralized public option in accomplishing certain objectives, and the noted experts make valid points concerning the ability of these smaller, more independent groups to spur wider competition in the health care market versus a larger government controlled public option. These smaller and spread out co-ops would be more effected by region-specific issues, would have lower abilities to sustain themselves, and as stated by the progressive experts would not be able to offer near equal bargaining power compared to a public option, among other potential problems. You also ignore the fact that at the end of the segment MMfA relates that Charles Gibson of ABC cites several experts, (not specifically progressive ones) as saying again that these co-ops would not be as effective as a public option.
Myth 13: They are bad apples nonetheless, and this highlights a disturbing tendency on the part of conservative media outlets to conflate the credentials of guests conforming with their opinions or to not mention certain applicable details so as to artificially elevate said opinions. I won't pretend that moderate or liberal media sources or persons have never done the same (in fact MMfA links CNN and Politico along with conservative outlets and individuals to certain of these questionable sources), yet I see no evidence that such practices are utilized by liberal sources to nearly the degree that they have been employed by conservative media figures (such as Lou Dobbs with his "birther" guests). The issue here is that certain sources are being irresponsibly legitimized by media figures, not that people are running around believing the opinions of unqualified individuals, and I don't seem to see bloggers on those sites falsely claiming to be health care experts so therefore we should believe them, I see people offering their opinions regardless of their status on certain issues.
Myth 14: Just one myth after you attempt to malign MMfA for "cherrypicking bad apples" you do much the same by attempting to use the state of the Walter Reed facility to denigrate the quality of veteran's care in general. Overall the numbers clearly will tell you that government paid veteran's care is a very successful program, so much so that Jon Stewart actually got William Kristol of all people to admit that with regards to veteran's care the government can reasonably well run it. Medicare's approaching solvency issues, as mentioned above, can probably be very well-tied to the corresponding rise in cost of general health care, which as MMfA notes, has not risen to the same degree that has been seen in the private sector. Also, HR 3200 attempts to make extensive modifications and improvements to address certain issues with Medicare (no doubt including looming solvency problems).
This is a gem! It is A-OK for the insurance companies to take your premiums and then deny you care??!! You seem to be saying that as long as they don't send goons to shoot at your car when you are going to the hospital, everything is fine!
I could have said this is incredible. But, sadly it is not. There are many more idiots around! :-(
Really, how do you figure this? Because there is a public OPTION, everyone will be required to take it. Uh, not sure if you understand what the word 'option' means in this case, but you will be able to buy anything you want. A private plan, if you want. A public plan, if you want. The choice, ie OPTION, is yours.
I would like to see the specific language from any of the bills that supports your contention here. Otherwise, I must assume you are simply making stuff up.
When my mother was dying and went into a coma after being hospitalized for less than a week, the very next day the insurance company said we either needed to pull the plug or move her home and watch her die there. Because she had received no end of life counseling, we didn't know what to do, but we faced the prospect of paying more than $10,000 a day out of pocket to give her the palliative care she was receiving in the hospital (which would have implied near financial ruin for our father) or take her home to receive significantly worse care in a situation we were unprepared for. In fact, she died the next day and we were spared the financial grief that would have compounded our personal loss. Lucky us.
Why is rationing of health care by market forces more just than the imaginary government rationing you posit (which, by the way, doesn't take place in government-run Medicare or Veterans health programs)?
The market for health care is non-competitive and inefficient. It is dominated by a small number of large players (which makes the insurance industry an oligopoly, which is not the same as an efficient competitive market). And providers don't compete on price, which is the central requirement of an efficient market.
The crisis in health care is another example of market failure. Please tell me how the government avoids intervention.
Myth 2: MMfA doesn't debunk the argument that gov healthcare will "ration", it simply gives the FALSE "well he does it to!!!" argument about private insurance. But private insurance companies DO NOT GIVE CARE, they simply cover expenses of the care received. So, if my company denies an MRI, I can STILL pay for it out of pocket and receive one, if I so wish. Until the insurance companies can literally prevent me from getting care regardless of whether I can pay for it or not, they are NOT rationing.
Myth 3: Correct, there are not "death panels" mandated, "death panel" is an egregious exagerration.
Myth 4: Cool, nice to see citizenship will start meaning something.
Myth 5: People who make good money don't count in "your". I get it.
Myth 6: The quote MMfA used did not say "all".
Myth 7: NOBODY knows the answer to this one, so while saying it will add $1 trillion to the deficit isn't true, neither is saying "it won't". Those who argue that the planned healthcare reform will stay on-budget do NOT have history on their side.
Myth 8: Sebelius and MMfA are being misleading at best. While your private insurance will not be immediately yanked away (unless your employer switches), you will not be able to modify your insurance in the future or select another choice besides the government program...this will undoubtedly lead to everyone being on the gov program eventually as people need different plans as their economic and health situation changes.
Myth 9: Absolutely true, Obama was responding to a false assertion by a reporter, not saying he didn't read the bill.
Myth 10: "Progressive experts" opinion is only "true" in progressiveland.
Myth 11: Acknowledged that the USA's system will not be exactly like Canada's or Britain's in its concept.
Myth 12: The public plan is socialized medicine. We have socialized highways, fire control, policing, etc...so the fact that it's "socialized" is irrelevant to the greater point.
Myth 13: Cherrypicking bad apples. The media that hosted them are at fault...but there are a lot of progressives running around believing what every blogger on HuffPo and DKos write, whether they're "qualified" or not.
Myth 14: Same VHA that had a hospital treating war wounded with crumbling paint and walls? How's Medicare doing these days, solvency-wise?
I think you are being misleading. Private insurance plans for both employers and indviduals will still be available if the legislation is passed. The difference is that they will have to be purchased through the health insurance exchange. Employers will be able to continue to provide employess with their current plan without penality for five years and then they are expected to switch to a plan that complys with the new minimum benefits standards or they will be taxed. Individual plans that are currently in place will be grandfathered in and indviduals will be able to keep them so long as the insurance companies continue to provide them. New indvidual private plans will have to be purchased through the health insurance exchange and meet the minimum benefits standards, but private insruance will still be avaialable.
#2 I have seen no proof that the government will ration healthcare. I think, by all reasonable thinking, there would be less rationing if it is not for profit.
#3 You agree.
#4 You agree. I was unaware citizenship didn't mean anything to you before, but nice to have you on board.
#5 I make good money and I don't see it the way you do. I am more than willing to pay more in taxes to provide for the welfare of my citizens. Honestly, I feel I owe it to America - who helped me become successful. It's not a class warfare thing as the right would like to frame it - it is a progressive tax thing. And, I think if you took away my insurance premiums and raised my taxes it may end up being about a wash.
#6 I think the quote said it would hit small business especially hard. I see no evidence of that in the numbers. It certainly would not hit small businesses as hard as providing health insurance for their employees does now.
#7 It seems that you do not agree or disagree with this one, so I guess this one remains neutral.
#8 I think you are completely incorrect on this. There is nothing in the law that says you cannot get private insurance coverage or switch to a different private insurance coverage. One of us is apparently reading the bill incorrectly. Or you are assuming on your part for the future, which I believe is what you dismissed as evidence for #7.
#9 You agree
#10 I would have to agree with them on this. I think this co-op system is essentially what has already been attempted with the "not-for-profit" insurance models. I am open to any evidence you have to the contrary, but I do not see where this co-op is going to decrease costs.
#11 You agree. There is no single-payer system being debated.
#12 I guess this depends on what your definition of socialism is. I would argue that as long as there is a private option it is not socialized medicine. Single-payer would be socialized medicine. I don't think there is a private equivalent to your fireman, policeman comparisons.
#13 There is absolute evidence that these 3 are wrong and purposefully so. To introduce McCaughey as an expert on anything other than misleading with falsehoods is an embarassment to anything calling itself "News".
#14 The VA is an excellent system. I think any unbiased assessment you find of the VA will bear this out. Also, I think the fact that we had so many of our soldiers after Iraq recovering in such deplorable conditions you can contribute to the fact that we did not have reasonable expectations of how long we would be in Iraq creating casualties and we completely underestimated how many of our casualties would survive (due to advances in battlefield medicine) and need extensive medical care. If you would like to argue that we need to invest more in our veterans I might agree with you, but to dismiss the VA as a poor healthcare system is wholly inaccurate.
The VA system is excellant:
"In a peer-reviewed paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers of the RAND Corp. reported that the quality of care received by Veterans Administration patients scored significantly higher overall than did comparable metrics for patients in the rest of the U.S. health system.[15"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care
RAND Study:
http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/141/12/938.pdf
Comparison of Quality of Care for Patients in the Veterans Health
Administration and Patients in a National Sample
"Conclusions: Patients from the VHA received higher-quality
care according to a broad measure. Differences were greatest in
areas where the VHA has established performance measures and
actively monitors performance."
Myth 2: MMfA doesn't debunk the argument that gov healthcare will "ration", it simply gives the FALSE "well he does it to!!!" argument about private insurance. But private insurance companies DO NOT GIVE CARE, they simply cover expenses of the care received. So, if my company denies an MRI, I can STILL pay for it out of pocket and receive one, if I so wish. Until the insurance companies can literally prevent me from getting care regardless of whether I can pay for it or not, they are NOT rationing.
Myth 3: Correct, there are not "death panels" mandated, "death panel" is an egregious exagerration.
Myth 4: Cool, nice to see citizenship will start meaning something.
Myth 5: People who make good money don't count in "your". I get it.
Myth 6: The quote MMfA used did not say "all".
Myth 7: NOBODY knows the answer to this one, so while saying it will add $1 trillion to the deficit isn't true, neither is saying "it won't". Those who argue that the planned healthcare reform will stay on-budget do NOT have history on their side.
Myth 8: Sebelius and MMfA are being misleading at best. While your private insurance will not be immediately yanked away (unless your employer switches), you will not be able to modify your insurance in the future or select another choice besides the government program...this will undoubtedly lead to everyone being on the gov program eventually as people need different plans as their economic and health situation changes.
Myth 9: Absolutely true, Obama was responding to a false assertion by a reporter, not saying he didn't read the bill.
Myth 10: "Progressive experts" opinion is only "true" in progressiveland.
Myth 11: Acknowledged that the USA's system will not be exactly like Canada's or Britain's in its concept.
Myth 12: The public plan is socialized medicine. We have socialized highways, fire control, policing, etc...so the fact that it's "socialized" is irrelevant to the greater point.
Myth 13: Cherrypicking bad apples. The media that hosted them are at fault...but there are a lot of progressives running around believing what every blogger on HuffPo and DKos write, whether they're "qualified" or not.
Myth 14: Same VHA that had a hospital treating war wounded with crumbling paint and walls? How's Medicare doing these days, solvency-wise?
I don't have much time to spend on here, but in regard to your myth 2: ANY system will in some way ration care; the point is, who is doing the rationing and why. I'd rather have a medical panel make up these decisions rather than a bean counter in a for-profit insurance company. The other point on 2: how many folks can afford to pay for an expensive treatment out of pocket??? Come on.
When you have government insurance, they will decide what treatments you get and at the same time be the ones to ration health care in the name of saving money. It is a conflict of interest.
Right now if you have a complaint against your insurance company you can avail yourself to government intercession through the State Insurance commissions or the courts. What do you do when your insurance is given to you by the government and you have a complaint against that same government? Do you think the government will let you sue it, if you are denied some sort of coverage?
Just because something is expensive does not mean the government has to pay for it. The same could be said of winter weekend vacations in Miami. While it may be beneficial to one's health not many can afford it. Does the government owe all of us who can't afford to get to Miami, free air fair and hotel? Where do you draw the line?
Mary, what will you do when the ONLY insurer denies necessary care that you cannot afford?
Dex, surely you do not think that is a good point.
If I was able
To talk to my table
It would make much more sense
And would be vastly less dense.
Please copy and paste relevant passages from the bill, or hyperlink if you prefer.
Do they do that in Medicare? No. Yet another lie.
Right now if you have a complaint against your insurance company you can avail yourself to government intercession through the State Insurance commissions or the courts.
Sure you can. Until you prove that one I ain't buyin' it. Until then, that's Lie #2.
Maybe you can answer my question, AA, since everyone else is avoiding it:
What do insurance companies bring to the table in regards to medical care?
See how two can play that game?
There is no "death panel" language in any reform bill. There ARE decisions made by insurance companies that deny people coverage and decisions that result in people losing their existing coverage.
See the diff? One is a lie and the other fact. Honestly, do you really see the difference.
WRONG
Hey Dexter - here is an event that happened to me
I have insurance through my employer and pay for highest coverage
Daughter needs surgery on both feet
Insurance approves surgery
Daugher has surgery on foot 1 and it is covered
I got laid off
got another job and have insurance through the same insurer.
I pay for the highest coverage
Daughter has surgery on foot 2
Insurance rejects coverage on surgey on second foot because of the gap of insurance and that daughter has pre-existing condition
I get a bill for $14,000
So as you can see this crisis is NOT just for people who don't have insurance
I think you are being misleading. Current indvidual insurance plans will be grandfathered in and new indvidual private plans would still be available, but would have to be purchased through the health insurance exchange that the legislation would set up. As long as the insurance company continues to offer the grandfathered plan individuals will be able to keep it. It's true that new individual plans as offered in the exchange would have to meet minimum benefits that the grandfathered/old plans would not.
Myth 14 is the only thing that really bothers me about the whole healthcare reform thing.
VA doesn't always offer the most up to date treatments. They surely do not offer the most up to date meds for my ptsd and depression. The stuff they offer is ancient and causes more severe sexual side effects than the meds offered through my work insurance.
Sadly, I was laid off a while back. Lose job = lose insurance and either lose mind or lose sexual function. As a former SOF soldier, I’m sorry to admit that it feels like my brain is melting away a little more each day.
There must be balance between cost cutting efficiencies, safety and quality measures, and keeping up with medical science. Even recently, if a soldier seeking treatment for depression committed suicide; the VA removed him/her from its list and counted it as a success.
It’s not that I don’t trust the VA; it’s that I don’t trust our congressional “leaders” to provide the necessary oversight to keep the system up to date.
It's also about containing costs, such as not subsidizing CEO salaries and HMO profits. Escalating costs have led to hundreds of thousands of bankruptcies due to obscene medical bills which, in turn, leads to foreclosures, which, in turn, hurts the health of the economy.
I'll ask you the same question as dexter: What do insurance companies bring to the table in regards to health care?
You're delusional. Nothing in the proposed bills will change how much doctors make. In fact, they'll be busier with more patients covered and therefore will make MORE money. And I betcha most doctors prefer dealing with medicare than HMO's.
And how do insurance companies bring quality care? I thought that was handled by your doctor/hospital?
The insurance companies are simply the gatekeepers who DENY care, over charge, can fail to renew your policy just because you happened to become ill, etc. etc.
You've earned your bumper sticker:
PROFITS OVER PEOPLE
In case you missed it, the government won't be hiring the doctors/hospitals, just paying them LIKE MEDICARE DOES.
Ask any doctor who they prefer dealing with - medicare or the insurance company bean counters.
Stark, you are operating under several false assumptions one of which is involving the definitions of analogy and strawmen, but you keep repeating one that makes you look even sillier. Doctors do not work for the insurance companies.
You are under the impression that when the government competes with insurance companies the doctors will go from working for the insurance companies to working for the government. I know our system has gotten so screwed up that we think the insurance companies hire and employ the doctors, but in actuality we pay the insurance companies and they are supposed to work for us.
You need to understand that the doctors do not work for the insurance companies. Then, maybe, you can have a little more rational argument on this subject.
That was your exact response to foghorn's question, which was "What do insurance companies bring to the table in regards to health care?".
You said it, my friend. You have made it abundantly clear you do not care how ignorant and silly you look on these threads, but I thought I would point that out for you anyways - just to assure you of my reading comprehension.
But, back to your most recent silly statement. YOU are missing the point. Doctors are not going to be employed by the government - I understand any concept besides the most simple is difficult for you to understand (either through lack of intelligence or because of partisan blinders). However, there is no single-payer system even being debated. In the UK doctors are paid by the government - that is not anywhere close to the system we are debating.
In fact, there will be more demand for doctors and others in the medical field if there are no longer millions and millions of under-insured and uninsured. This would mean there would be more demand for medical professionals. Surely, you can understand the basic economic concept of demand. Right?
Also, I think since we pay double what France pays I suggest it is your side that show us how superior our system is. What are we getting for that extra 3k per person per year?
Here's my cursory research on just Canada.
However, on most measures of patient-reported physician quality, Canada comes out slightly ahead of the U.S. The Commonwealth Fund report shows somewhat fewer reported physician errors, lab errors, medication errors and duplicate tests north of the border, and Canadians report more satisfaction with their doctors. General health is also better up north, according to the World Health Organization: Life expectancy and healthy life expectancy are both higher in Canada; infant mortality is lower, and maternal mortality is significantly lower. There are fewer deaths from non-communicable diseases, cardiovascular diseases and injuries in Canada, though marginally more deaths from cancer. It's not clear how much of the divergence is attributable to medical care, rather than other standard-of-living differences between the two countries. (For instance, according to the United Nations' Human Development Index, Canada has a much higher school enrollment rate than the U.S., though it also has a lower GDP per capita.) But these statistics simply don't support the notion that universal, single-payer health care is crippling the health of Canadian citizens compared with that of U.S. citizens.
Source: FactCheck.org
Canada has "marginally more deaths from cancer" and yet studies still show they outperform the U.S. You're gonna have to come up with a better talking point than that to disprove WHO rankings.
So, reducing deaths due to cardio-vascular disease, injuries, and non-communicable diseases means increasing the rates for other causes of death including cancer even if perhaps the majority were moved to "old age". And, if avoiding those causes of death pushes more people into older age Canada may have a higher incidence of cancer past the age of 60 say, and the older you are the less likely you would be to survive cancer.
That is actually a tough sentence to parse for information. More interesting might be comparative death rates for each type of cancer of those who get that cancer sliced by age.
This from a person who couldn't understand why he/she was being labelled Colbert?
Please, by all means, explain this analogy to me.
Not liking how insurance companies do business is not the same thing as wanting/needing the gov to take care of me. You were telling me and everyone else how crazy we are for endorsing those awful health insurance profiteers, but opposing gov-run healthcare is not the same as endorsing them, and you have ZERO ethical/moral rights to take away my choice in healthcare.
Why are all the pro-choice folks anti-choice when it comes to hc??
And for the 7,538th time, no one is taking away your choice. You'll still be able to subsidize HMO profits and CEO salaries with private health care.
And if they can't compete, well, who's fault is that?
We have taken the word of the insurance industries and their supporters for years that any kind of a public option would drive up costs and the only way to keep down costs is to keep out the government. Well, we have tried that for generations and it is clearly untrue.
I am not opposed to a hybrid system such as France nor am I opposed to creating a public option to compete against the insurance industry. What I am opposed to is allowing the insurance industry to continue to dictate our options. They have essentially lied to me for the last time. I no longer buy their "we're your ally" nonsense. They are out for maximum profits and that is a faulty model in healthcare.
I also think you're missing the point when you suggest our healthcare is superior because of our cancer survival rates. I don't believe that anyone is arguing that we don't have great doctors or great medical schools. We have intelligent, capable, hard-working people in every industry in this country.
What we don't have now is the ability to ensure health coverage to all of our citizens. And this is just unacceptable to me. It doesn't matter how great our cancer survival rates are to the people who don't live long enough to get cancer because of our infant mortality rate.
I think there is a middle ground here and I think that's where Obama has been the entire time. The problem is the right-wing is, once again, not having an adult argument. They want to waste our valuable debate time on "death panels" and "pulling the plug on Grandma" and "illegals are coming and they're bringing ACORN with 'em". And then they argue that this bill is being rushed? It is WAY past time for a change in this healthcare problem. I am inclined to listen to a reasonable alternative being offered rather than to the argument for the status quo.
Along these same lines, the insurance companies are having a hissy fit about a proposal to cut their government subsidies that they have enjoyed in order to run a program for people who can be convinced to opt out of Medicare. Then there is Plan D, a give away to the Pharmaceutical industry via the insurance companies. It mandates that people have to sign up with an insurance drug plan that they can change only on a yearly basis while the plans can change their charges and benefits at will, a classic bait and switch game.
There actually may be some logic to the statement that a government option would drive the insurance companies out of business if they wanted to keep doing the same as they are now. On the other hand, if they changed their business model and forgot about overpaying their administrative types, then they should be able to compete.
The fact that you use the word "choice" implies you are healthy and have never suffered financial hardship. You may think you have choice now, but everything can change in a heartbeat.
If your employer subsidizes your health insurance and you are laid off, COBRA is very expensive for most people, particularly those collecting unemployment. Letting coverage lapse during this period is inadvisable, even for a day, particularly if you have any kind of chronic health condition because any insurance company from which you are fortunate to acquire coverage in the future (no guarantee you'll get it) can claim whatever illness you have is a "pre-existing condition" and refuse to pay your bills no matter how much premium you've paid.
If you pay for your insurance yourself, there is nothing to prevent your private insurance company from cancelling your policy if you have the temerity to submit a claim. Even if you never submit a claim, you will notice every year your premiums get higher and higher. You may be able to find a company offering a lower premium, but that was just a come-on to lure you in: the next year your premiums will go up, again.
In either case, premium costs continue to rise, and whether your employer subsidizes your coverage or you pay for it directly, you are still being socked with higher costs in part because the costs associated with treating all the uninsured people who show up in emergency rooms unable to pay for treatment get passed on to the policy holders (e.g. you).
So, where is the choice in any of these scenarios?
Also, stark, I was calling you Colbert because you are the satire. Do you understand the difference or no?
IncompetEnt. Please. Thank you.
The analogy to the USPS is a good one for the health care debate I think. The Public option would be run similar to the Post Office in that it would be started with government seed money, but would then have to be self sustaining. It would provide a way to receive BASIC insurance, that you cannot be denied (like is happening now with the private industry) and that would be affordable. And who has a bad experience with the post office? Don't you get your mail delivered every day for free? How long are the waits at the post office for dropping off a letter? The fact is, the system works pretty good for the costs we pay, which are none. As far as government running things, they seem to be able to run the mail and health care for old people rather well.
So, I wonder, do all of you anti-socialists want to shut down the US Post Office? Or want to shut down socialist, government run health care (medicare) for old people? Do you really think that the elderly would be able to qualify for insurance on the private market? How about those socialist public restrooms? Or what about those communist rest stops they we have along our marxist highway system? Am I going to see teabaggers peeing in the bushes and driving on the shoulder of the road?
What the article said was the 25 million are UNDER insured. The number of uninsured is most recently 49 million what with people losing coverage because of being laid off. As for those 49 million, the only people who claim that it includes undocumented aliens are the right wing. The people actually doing the counting are including people who aren't hiding from the government. And the main reason others "chose" to go uncovered is that they have a choice between insurance or eating and paying utilities. In my own case, I make less than $21,000 a year so there is no way that I can pay more than 40% of my pretax income in insurance premiums.
There are 47+ million uninsured, plus 25 million UNDERINSURED. That makes the numbers a bit more compelling, yeah?
Gee, I wonder why?
I live in a district represented by someone who is little more than an RNC talking points-regurgitating lock-stepper. He will never respond to my comments to him with anything approaching a reasonable, original thought.
So, here's what I just did:
- I e-mailed this article to myself.
- I opened my Congressman's web site (the only way to send him an electronic message.)
- I copied the text of the article from my e-mail and pasted it to the "TEXT" area of my Congressman's web site after the following introduction:
"Mr. Herger,
I submit the following in response to your continued failure to address the health care crisis with anything other than RNC talking points about "lowering taxes", "free markets" and other meaningless responses.
Hopefully, you will take the time to review all 14 of the claims, since they are from sources that support the "Just say NO!" doctrine of you and your party's leaders.
I also urge you to thoroughly fact check the "REALITY" portion of each myth.
I would appreciate a response from you with your position on each of the 14 myths. To make it easy on you (more likely, your staff) your response can be in the form of "I agree with Rush Limbaugh on this.", etc.
Regards,"
I won't hold my breath for a response.
My oh my,
I just want to sigh.
Add a second "s" to your handle,
And it'll match your reply.
Ironically, I do wish all of the cons on here weren't such weak punching bags. It's no fun to shoot fish in a barrel, though somehow Cheney thought it sporting to shoot quail with clipped wings. Go figure.
I think you are being misleading. Private insurance plans for both employers and indviduals will still be available if the legislation is passed. The difference is that they will have to be purchased through the health insurance exchange. Employers will be able to continue to provide employess with their current plan without penality for five years and then they are expected to switch to a plan that complys with the new minimum benefits standards or they will be taxed. Individual plans that are currently in place will be grandfathered in and indviduals will be able to keep them so long as the insurance companies continue to provide them. New indvidual private plans will have to be purchased through the health insurance exchange and meet the minimum benefits standards, but private insruance will still be avaialable.
They can't even properly adminster Social Security and Medicare for Gods sake:
A SUMMARY OF THE 2009 ANNUAL REPORTS
Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees
The financial condition of the Social Security and Medicare programs remains challenging. Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current program parameters. Social Security's annual surpluses of tax income over expenditures are expected to fall sharply this year and to stay about constant in 2010 because of the economic recession, and to rise only briefly before declining and turning to cash flow deficits beginning in 2016 that grow as the baby boom generation retires. The deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about three fourths of scheduled benefits through 2083. Medicare's financial status is much worse. As was true in 2008, Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures this year than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. The difference will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets. Growing annual deficits are projected to exhaust HI reserves in 2017, after which the percentage of scheduled benefits payable from tax income would decline from 81 percent in 2017 to about 50 percent in 2035 and 30 percent in 2080. In addition, the Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund that pays for physician services and the prescription drug benefit will continue to require general revenue financing and charges on beneficiaries that grow substantially faster than the economy and beneficiary incomes over time.
The drawdown of Social Security and HI Trust Fund reserves and the general revenue transfers into SMI will result in mounting pressure on the Federal budget. In fact, pressure is already evident. For the third consecutive year, a "Medicare funding warning" is being triggered, signaling that non-dedicated sources of revenues—primarily general revenues—will soon account for more than 45 percent of Medicare's outlays. A Presidential proposal will be needed in response to the latest warning.
The financial challenges facing Social Security and especially Medicare need to be addressed soon. If action is taken sooner rather than later, more options will be available, with more time to phase in changes and for those affected to plan for changes.
Medicare
As we reported last year, Medicare's financial difficulties come sooner—and are much more severe—than those confronting Social Security. While both programs face demographic challenges, rapidly growing health care costs also affect Medicare. Underlying health care costs per enrollee are projected to rise faster than the earnings per worker on which payroll taxes and Social Security benefits are based. As a result, while Medicare's annual costs were 3.2 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2008, or about three quarters of Social Security's, they are projected to surpass Social Security expenditures in 2028 and reach 11.4 percent of GDP in 2083.
The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is now 3.88 percent of taxable payroll, up from 3.54 percent projected in last year's report. The fund again fails our test of short-range financial adequacy, as projected annual assets drop below projected annual expenditures within 10 years—by 2012. The fund also continues to fail our long range test of close actuarial balance by a wide margin. The projected date of HI Trust Fund exhaustion is 2017, two years earlier than in last year's report, when dedicated revenues would be sufficient to pay 81 percent of HI costs. Projected HI dedicated revenues fall short of outlays by rapidly increasing margins in all future years. The Medicare Report shows that the HI Trust Fund could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years by changes equivalent to an immediate 134 percent increase in the payroll tax (from a rate of 2.9 percent to 6.78 percent), or an immediate 53 percent reduction in program outlays, or some combination of the two. Larger changes would be required to make the program solvent beyond the 75-year horizon.
The projected exhaustion of the HI Trust Fund within the next eight years is an urgent concern. Congressional action will be necessary to ensure uninterrupted provision of HI services to beneficiaries. Correcting the financial imbalance for the HI Trust Fund—even in the short range alone—will require substantial changes to program income and/or expenditures.
Part B of the Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund, which pays doctors' bills and other outpatient expenses, and Part D, which pays for access to prescription drug coverage, are both projected to remain adequately financed into the indefinite future because current law automatically provides financing each year to meet next year's expected costs. However, expected steep cost increases will result in rapidly growing general revenue financing needs-projected to rise from 1.3 percent of GDP in 2008 to about 4.7 percent in 2083-as well as substantial increases over time in beneficiary premium charges.
It is expected that about one quarter of Part B enrollees will be subject to unusually large premium increases in the next two years. This occurs because it is projected that the other three-quarters of Part B enrollees will not be subject to premium increases in those years due to low projected Social Security benefit COLAs and a "hold-harmless" provision of current law that limits premium increases to the increase in Social Security benefits.
Social Security
The annual cost of Social Security benefits represented 4.4 percent of GDP in 2008 and is projected to increase to 6.2 percent of GDP in 2034, and then decline to about 5.8 percent of GDP by 2050 and remain at about that level. The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the combined Old-Age and Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Fund is 2.00 percent of taxable payroll, up from 1.70 percent projected in last year's report. This increase is due primarily to the recession, slightly lower estimates for real GDP after the economy recovers in 2015, and faster reductions in mortality rates. Although the combined OASDI program passes our short-range test of financial adequacy, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund does not; DI program costs have exceeded tax revenue since 2005, and trust fund exhaustion is projected for 2020. In addition, OASDI continues to fail our long-range test of close actuarial balance by a wide margin. Projected OASDI tax income will begin to fall short of outlays in 2016, and will be sufficient to finance 76 percent of scheduled annual benefits in 2037, after the combined OASDI Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted.
Social Security could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years with changes equivalent to an immediate 16 percent increase in the payroll tax (from a rate of 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent) or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent or some combination of the two. Ensuring that the system remains solvent on a sustainable basis beyond the next 75 years would require larger changes because increasing longevity will result in people receiving benefits for ever longer periods of retirement.
It doesn't do the right wing any good to point out how bad Medicare is being handled when the private insurance people are doing even worse. It just makes the contrast more stark.
Now, I pay $30.00 for a generic, and $50.00 for a name-brand drug, unless there is a generic version of the name-brand drug, then I pay full price.
When I wanted to keep taking my name-brand heart medication, I was told I would have to pay $295.00 per month for 30 pills.
Obviously, drug prices are going up at an accelerated rate.
I read a report where many poor and elderly people only take their blood pressure medicines every other day, hoping to keep their costs down.
The cost of treating a patient who has suffered a massive stroke from hypertension is thousands of times greater than a full year's supply of medication. Not very cost-effective.
Since the Republicans rammed through a bill that wouldn't allow Medicare to bargain for drug prices and wouldn't allow drug importation from Canada, that could be changed.
Cutting down on Pentagon waste and fraud, and tax cheats, disallowing corporations operating offshore shell operations to avoid paying taxes, repealing the tax cuts for the wealthy, raising the social security cap, et. etc.
Getting the military out of a number of countries, including Iraq.........................................................................................................................................
The only reason that there WILL be a shortfall in these programs is because the "lock box" that was supposed to cover the boomer retirees has been continually spent by Congress and all the Presidents, since Reagan and Congress raised the social security tax in the 1980s.
"Look kids, it's a conservative. They are a dying species. Unfortunately, they weren't endowed with the logic capabilities of you and I. That ultimately proved their down fall though they compensated for it for awhile with their tendency toward violence and their need to subjugate the weak at every turn."
Because we read what the bills actually say. Then when we compare that reality with the right wing fervent imagination, we can tell that their proclamations are false.
I have to tip my hat to Media Matters for its tactful commentary on Betsy McCaughey for calling her "a serial misinformer" when what they really meant is that she lies out her distal digestive tract.
I think I agree with most people on this board when I assert that the current healthcare system is terrible. It costs way too much and treats way too few. As a sidenote: Conservatives love to cite our success in cancer treatment which to me is a statistic that underscores the whole problem. The nature of the cancer disease and the treatment make it the most profitable illness for the healthcare industry. As a result, we treat it very well (but prevent it very poorly). It's the kind of absurd statistic that develops when you allow the profit motive to be the ordering factor in healthcare. In addition, the burden of healthcare is shifted onto business owners and companies who are then asked to compete in a global marketplace against companies who don't have that burden because their countries have a government run system. The problem with Obama's plan is that it doesn't really fix the fundamental problem--you cannot expect private industry to operate in the public good when the financial incentives are structured in such a way that it is in their best interest to lower the quality of healthcare. The ONLY part of the healthcare proposal that makes ANY sense is the public option. It forces private insurers to act in the public good and provide real services to the patient and stop treating their diseases like potential profit margins. If HMOs can't compete with bloated government bureaucracy then they shouldn't be running healthcare.
Instead, we see references to things like "conclusively discredited". Why not say "proven to be bald-faced lies" instead??.
And then there's the bit about "serial misinformer who has perpetuated numerous falsehoods". Oh, stop being so prudish, for Heaven's sake! What's wrong with calling a spade a spade and say "congenital liar who has spread many lies" instead?
http://costofwar.com/
hmmmmm.... truly, which is the lessor of the two investment evils!
IMHO... heatlhcare and the stabilization of medicare and social security and national infrastructure, flood control in the big easy... rebuild gulf port mississippi etc etc etc...
too few benefit from war... and don't tell me i am safer now... 9/11 was a huge failure of government not hard ass army, navy, air force and marine men and women...
of course for you who think it was an inside job... were doomed either way
Obviously, all knowledge is language and objectivity is impossible. Just as obviously, striving for objectivity (which is not the same thing as being nonpartisan) is a good thing.
Insurance premiums continue to rise The Business Journal of Milwaukee
Bizjournals.com - 1 hour ago
Family health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored insurance has increased 119 percent since 1999, and could increase another 94 percent to an average $23842 per family by 2020, according to a new analysis by the Commonwealth Fund.
http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2009/08/17/daily86.html
Come on mediamatters.....do a report of this "myth".
Illegal aliens can be covered because democrats refuse to ask for "citizenship" when applying for health care.
Democrats recently defeated the Heller amendment in the House Bill that would have enforced a citizenship requirement for health care benefits.
The reason we have 12 - 20 million illegal aliens here is because they refused to enforce our immigration laws and now they are attempting to make it even worse.
Also, Obama keeps repeating over and over again the need to provide insurance to the 46 million uninsured even though he also admits that the 46 million number includes illegal aliens.
Just more lies, trickery and deceit.