About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Quick Fact: Beck falsely claims that under the Senate health care bill, "You don't get a single benefit until 2014"

November 19, 2009 8:33 pm ET — 15 Comments

During his November 19 Fox News program, Glenn Beck falsely claimed that under the Senate health care bill, "All of the benefits of this bill don't kick in until when? You don't get a single benefit until 2014." He later added: "[G]uess what, you're not going to get jack for five whole years" after the bill is passed.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

From the November 19 broadcast of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: All of the benefits of this bill don't kick in until when? You don't get a single benefit until 2014. But the taxes that we just went over, when do they start? Hmm. Wait a minute. So I'm not going to get any benefit, but I'm going to pay all of those taxes. We're taxing the American public ten years in order to pay for five years of coverage.

Well, first of all, once the coverage starts, you're never going to be able to afford it. Did somebody invent a garbage powered Delorian that can time travel when it hits 88 miles per hour? Because I'm not aware of it. You can't keep taxing ten years for taxes and only pay for five years. The space time continuum doesn't work that way.

What politician would stand at the podium and say, "I know we're in a recession, unemployment, double digits and climbing, deficit is $12 trillion -- we'll be $24.5 according to whitehouse.gov -- $24.5 trillion in ten years. But I'm going to add all these taxes here, and guess what, you're not going to get jack for five whole years. Anybody who taxes you with all of this stuff, this much, and the economy continues to go down, our deficits continue to go up, how does that politician get re-elected?

Fact: Numerous benefits from the health care reform bill would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill.

According to a document put forth by Senate Democrats summarizing the "Immediate Benefits" of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , the bill includes numerous benefits that would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill. Indeed, WashingtonPost.com blogger Ezra Klein published the following list of benefits that the Senate bill would provide "before 2014":

1) Eliminating lifetime limits, and cap annual limits, on health-care benefits. In other words, if you get an aggressive cancer and your treatment costs an extraordinary amount, your insurer can't suddenly remind you that subparagraph 15 limited your yearly expenses to $30,000, and they're not responsible for anything above that.

2) No more rescissions.

3) Some interim help for people who have preexisting conditions, though the bill does not instantly ban discrimination on preexisting conditions.

4) Requiring insurers to cover preventive care and immunizations.

5) Allowing young adults to stay on their parent's insurance plan until age 26.

6) Developing uniform coverage documents so people can compare different insurance policies in an apples-to-apples fashion.

7) Forcing insurers to spend 80 Epercent of all premium dollars on medical care (75 percent in the individual market), thus capping the money that can go toward administration, profits, etc.

8) Creating an appeals process and consumer advocate for insurance customers.

9) Developing a temporary re-insurance program to help early retirees (folks over 55) afford coverage.

10) Creating an internet portal to help people shop for and compare coverage.

11) Miscellaneous administrative simplification stuff.

12) Banning discrimination based on salary (i.e., where a company that's not self-insured makes only some full-time workers eligible for coverage. [Ezra Klein's WashingtonPost.com blog 11/19/09]

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by DellDolly (November 19, 2009 11:09 pm ET)
      2 1
      Wow, Beck is just like many of the uneducated rightwing posters we get here who don't know what they're talking about but still come here and lecture us and pretend that they're going to educate us!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jms (November 19, 2009 11:25 pm ET)
      2 3
      no government option until 2014, that was the point and you know it. spare me your pimples on the elephant's arse. start questioning why if this is so important and moral and blah blah blah why it wouldn't start immediately.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by all your eyes (November 20, 2009 9:51 am ET)
        1 1
        The public option doesn't cost anything, it pays for itself. So they're not trying to hide costs. The administrative side will take some time to put together, but you're right, 2014 is a bit of a stretch. There are plenty of Democrats in the Senate who would move that date up. And they may succeed in doing so during the amendments process.

        The most expensive part of this program is the system of tax subsidies to help low- and middle-income workers pay for health insurance. It is unclear to me when those subsidies would kick in. I blame the media. They're so fixated on the fight over the public option, they can't see the forest from the trees. I consider myself well informed, and I haven't seen in print or on television exactly when those subsidies would begin to allow more people to buy into the system.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (November 20, 2009 12:29 pm ET)
        1 2
        You should start questioning why you're defending useless blowhards like Glenn Beck. Is it because you're equally useless????/
        Report Abuse
    • Author by rrastro (November 20, 2009 12:10 am ET)
      1 3
      Wow-- Beck was really wrong. By 2014 there may be no companies writing health plans
      Report Abuse
    • Author by markbfoot199 (November 20, 2009 10:28 am ET)
        1
      None of the above states when these benefits would start. I would like to see dates, or the date is starts after a so called bill is passed.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (November 20, 2009 12:36 pm ET)
        2  
        The paragraph above the list of benefits starts with the following sentence (boldface emphasis is mine):

        According to a document put forth by Senate Democrats summarizing the "Immediate Benefits" of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , the bill includes numerous benefits that would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill.


        Since you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension, let me explain this to you. If the bill were to be passed this month, all the benefits in the list would kick in on or before November 2010.

        Go read a book. Start with "My Pet Goat" - that may be about your speed....
        Report Abuse
    • Author by everettbme (November 20, 2009 11:12 am ET)
         
      There once was a man named Glenn
      Who told unthuths time and again
      He went to work with a Fox
      Lived his life just to mock
      And never met a story he could not spin.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by highliter (November 20, 2009 11:54 am ET)
        1
      The point was taxes start now. Anything that actually cost the government anything doesnt begin until 2014. So they get 5 year to collect without having to pay. Wow talk about a spin.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by sunryse (November 20, 2009 2:09 pm ET)
      1  
      Wait, how is he wrong on this? These are regulations for the INSURANCE INDUSTRY, not "benefits" for the taxes. How is raising my taxes giving me a benefit by requiring uniform insurance forms?

      I'm sorry, but this seems a little off that everyone is so "Beck is wrong!". Beck is a loon, but this dispute looks a little loony too when it's not explaining any benefits. Only regulation.

      Regulation isn't getting my money's worth of being taxed right now.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by klatoo (November 20, 2009 4:55 pm ET)
         
      Here is what I understand from GB. There is value($)to getting rapid response health care. There is value($)upon receiving quality health care. So if the hang time to see a doctor is increased let's say by months and the quality reduced let's say because you are "too old" to receive it, then there is savings to be had. Well, 83% are satisfied with their current health care. Too bad, because in order for the government to get this cash flow people are going to have to die. And with the new found cash, those that are now without health care can finally go to see the dermatologist at the government rate. Is that right?
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube Reddit