Rove's anti-health care reform column full of misinformation
In a March 11 Wall Street Journal editorial, Fox News Contributor Karl Rove falsely claimed that the Senate health care bill has "abortion-funding language," adds to the deficit and contains no immediate benefits. In fact, the Senate bill prohibits federal funding of abortion, contains numerous immediate benefits, and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, reduces the deficit.
Rove: Senate bill funds abortion, adds to the deficit, and doesn't provide immediate benefits
Rove: Senate bill contains "abortion funding language." In a March 11 Wall Street Journal editorial, Rove falsely suggested the Senate bill allowed for federal funding of abortion. Rove wrote, "Pro-life House Democrats are deeply disturbed by the Senate abortion-funding language."
Rove: "Senate
bill adds hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit."
Rove also falsely claimed the Senate
bill would add to the deficit, writing, "Blue Dogs are upset by the fact that
the Senate bill adds hundreds of billions of dollars to the
deficit."
Rove falsely suggested
Senate bill contained no immediate "benefits." Rove also claimed that
"[t]he Senate bill's tax increases and Medicare benefit cuts kick in right away
while its benefits (subsidies for health-care coverage) don't start until 2013
and aren't fully operational for seven years," falsely suggesting that the only
"benefits" in the bill are "subsidies for health-care
coverage."
Senate bill prohibits health insurers from using federal subsidies to pay for abortion services restricted by Hyde
The Senate health care reform bill as passed states that if a "qualified health plan" offered under the health insurance exchange provides coverage of abortion services for which public funding is banned, "the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable" to the subsidies created under the bill "for purposes of paying for such services."
Senate bill establishes a separate premium to segregate funds used to pay for abortions from federal funds. The Senate bill as passed further requires issuers to "collect from each enrollee" in plans that cover abortions a "separate payment" for "an amount equal to the actuarial value of the coverage of" abortion services. This value must be at least $1 per enrollee, per month. All such funds are deposited into a separate account used by the issuer to pay for abortion services; federal funds and the remaining premium payments are used to pay for all other services.
Current law allows for Medicaid to provide coverage for abortions restricted by Hyde by using similar fund segregation. According to a November 1, 2009, study by the Guttmacher Institute, 17 states provide coverage under Medicaid for "all or most medically necessary abortions," not just abortions in cases of life endangerment, rape, and incest. Those states "us[e] their own funds" -- not federal funds -- "to pay" for the procedures. Therefore, in 17 states, Medicaid, a federally subsidized health care program, covers abortions in circumstances in which federal money is prohibited from being spent on abortion.
CBO: Senate health care bill will lower the deficit
CBO: Senate bill yields "a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion" over 10 years. On December 19, 2009, CBO reported of the Senate bill incorporating the manager's amendment:
CBO and JCT estimate that the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act incorporating the manager's amendment would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion over the 2010-2019 period.
CBO: Over second 10 years, Senate bill would save "between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP." In a December 20, 2009, letter amending the December 19 report, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf wrote:
All told, CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the decade after 2019 relative to those projected under current law -- with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP.
Numerous benefits from Senate health care bill would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill
Senate Democrats note "Immediate Benefits" of health care bill. Despite Rove's suggestion, 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. The benefits include "access to affordable coverage for the uninsured with pre-existing conditions," "access to quality care for vulnerable populations," "no pre-existing coverage exclusions for children," "re-insurance for retiree health benefit plans," "closing the coverage gap in the Medicare (Part D) Drug Benefit," "small business tax credits," "ensuring value for premium payments," protection of "patients' choice of doctors," "prohibiting insurers from requiring prior authorization before" a "woman sees an ob-gyn," "ensuring access to emergency care," "extension of dependent coverage for young adults," "coverage of prevention and wellness benefits"; "free, annual wellness visit" for Medicare beneficiaries," a prohibition on "insurers from imposing lifetime limits on benefits," "restricted annual limits on coverage," and prohibiting "insurers from rescinding insurance when claims are filed," among other immediate benefits.
That way, they can continue to lie about it, and campaign against the caricature of Healthcare Reform they've so carefully constructed over the past year.
Answer this simple question: if "what's best for the country" is this health care bill, why haven't the democrats passed it already?
Let me help you with your answer: because the democrats only care about maintaining power, not what's best for the country.
Most already see that, but let me help show an example using your own statement. Any 'evident benefits' that show up in time for November would have gotten every democrat re-elected if this had been passed when they had full control. Obviously, this bill does NOT have any 'evident benefits' for politicians or they would have used it to further their careers by now. You seem to think democratic politicians are noble and others are not, that may be why you think democrats will get re-elected using the health care bill results as a spring board. That's ok, nobody expects anything more from liberals who blindly parrot what they are told to. The fact is that there are no 'evident benefits' in the health care bill and democrats know it, that's why they are letting the republicans delay as much as possible, they want to pass the blame to others for allowing the bill to pass as our economy is in the middle of failing. What kind of governmental moron would vote to spend trillion$ more on something that could be fixed with a simple sign-in sheet of paper (in triplicate for government purposes).
Anyone can see (by now) that the best way to fix our health care system that allows children to go without health care could be fixed by having them sign up for government health care, just like they do for food stamps or unemployment benefits or any other government assistance that is offered. Does the government automatically just give any assistance to anyone? No, you have to sign up for it first. If they treated health care the same way, then trillion$ of American taxpayer money could be saved and used for more urgent needs... like the war in Pakistan (drones aren't cheap).
BTW: I have a some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you gullible MMFA regulars who actually believe passage of the current OHC Bill will reduce the deficit 10 years from now. Cheap!
Actually, yours aren't technically typographical errors, they're grammatical errors.
But I'm trying to be courteous.
goesto--- please check my post for grammatical errors that need to be addressed so I can post more fluently next time.... like you do.
Alas, they are not.
Also, please type slower. Thanks.
And factual errors....
No matter how it makes you feel, research was done on this by the most respected name in the industry (During Clinton, Bush, Obama), the CBO.
If you listened to them when Bush was in Office, or when they crushed some Clinton bill, or if they said something negative about Obama, then WHY do you knee-jerk distrust them now??
Polls Show 81% Of Americans Believe Healthcare Bill Will Cost More
http://www.americasnewsonline.com/polls-show-81-of-americans-believe-healthcare-bill-will-cost-more-903/
Though I only took the one class in statistics/polling, I still want to see the methodology and margin of error in any poll. I also prefer 'Original Source' materials on claims.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/march_2010/57_predict_health_care_plan_will_hurt_the_economy
Wow! Lo and behold, guess what statement is in the link I provided? You guessed right: "Underlying this concern is a lack of trust in the government numbers. Eighty-one percent (81%) believe it is at least somewhat likely that the health care reform plan will cost more than official estimates."
Now, perhaps dave and john can rest easier now that they have all the pertinant information they were so concerned about. Maybe they could reply to the message instead of whining about the messenger this time.
"Polls show 81% of Americans Believe Healthcare Bill Will Cost More"
How could anyone honestly respond to a poll when they haven't read the bill 'cause as of today, THERE IS NO BILL
Furthermore, I'd be interested to know whether those polled are the same people who turn to Faux for their only source of news??
Why do these people "believe healthcare will cost more'? Aren't you interested to know what their belief is based upon??
Personally, I would like to see the federal government be a lot less intrusive in my life. I try to find out all sides to policy arguements, so, I have to watch CNN, MSNBC, FOX and read NYT, WSJ, Huffington Post, Drudge Report, Media Matters et al.
So far, I find the so-called right wing solutions more apt to solve our problems, but, I actually am open to other ideas, in the meantime I keep looking for the answers that won't sacrifice my freedom for a little security.
How is the government so intrusive in your life?
Were you against the Patriot Act, the most intrusive piece of legislation in decades?
Why do you hate police so much? Are you a criminal?
After 8 years his policies tanked the economy into the worst crisis since the GREAT DEPRESSION. I could go on but I would take CLINTON or OBAMA ANY DAY over BOY GEORGE AND DEAD EYE DICK.
Of course you would take Clinton, he's the biggist sexual pervert to be close to the white house since ... well ... EVER! Why do liberals love sexual perverts so much? I thought liberals claim to be good Christians, yet they love sexual perversion ... hmmm. Could you explain why such a good liberal would love to have a self-admitted serial rapist be president? Wait, I think I know ... he's your inspiration and role model. Being a liberal must be such fun, having all those 'freedoms' that other good Christians don't have.
al queda moved into IRAQ AFTER we invaded, not before. the few wmds found were old and rotted and of no use.
As for CLINTON, He was a sexual pervert but was still better at his job than either BOY GEORGE or his DAD. You CONSERVATIVES claim to be CHRISTIANS yet listen to the hate coming from you to anyone that they disagree with.
You need to wake up and do some research instead of swallowing that RIGHT WING GARBAGE hook, line and sinker.
Logic? You won't see much logic on this Board. I can vouch for this because I've been surfing here for a few months. The MMFA regulars rely on emotions rather than logic.
Another lie. Isn't Matlock getting ready to start?
Just saying...logically speaking.
Logic=being emotional to a rightwing surfing champ
Oh, that's rich. What did you think we had for eight years under Bush? What were the results of that regime's unchecked abuses of power? Warantless wiretapping is unintrusive? Suspension of habeus corpus keeps you free? An income disparity so wide that the standard of living for 95% of Americans has consistently decreased over the past three decades makes sense to you? Crumbling infrastructure, the disappearance of the middle class, a health care system that falls below Cuba's in all measures of efficacy, two wars, plutocracy and a giant hole where the World Trade Center once stood, this is the state at which we arrived under the care of your right wing solutions.
I'd say shame on you, but I suspect that shame is too introspective an emotional state for your up-is-down worldview. So instead, I wish you many happy returns on the poison you spray into the world. Karma, the gift that keeps on giving.
81% of REPUBLICANS believe that they are MASTERS and not SLAVES to the system
81% of FOX NEWS WATCHERS believe that INCOME REDISTRIBUTION would TAKE from them because they think they are AT THE HIGH END OF THE PYRAMID
I guess I must be an "Abnormal American", because if you're normal I wouldn't want to be in that group.
you quote a source which claims to be in the middle and i kid you not "balanced and fair"
check the site... it is the GOP agenda word for word
i would have a lot more confidence in your statement if it came from a CENTRIST source
moreover.... Will Cost More.... THAN WHAT ? ? ?
The 31 MILLION uninsured people DON'T THINK THIS ! ! !
Here's a simple question that will confuse (even the most moronic of) all those who support a national health care system, what will cost more? Insuring 31 million or insuring 250 million? Perhaps THAT is what it will cost more than!
(1st), the article specifically says '81%'. I even included the paragraph where is was used in another post (March 12, 2010 9:27 am ET).
(2nd), it is obvious to most people the key words are "somewhat likely".
(3rd), would you prefer a poll that asks questions before the public is able to discuss the merits of the bill? That could have been done while the democrats had full and complete power. However, even they can't agree among themselves so your liberal leaders failed in providing Americans with health coverage. Now, it's up to republicans to do what liberals could not... again.
Kind of reminds you of Clinton going after OBL, he relied on others to do that for him too. I like the way liberals will blame republicans for failures that democrats create.
1) Roves column contains lies, likely in addition to typos. Between these two criticisms, MMfA chose to focus on the lies. It is no surprise that Karl Rove lied, but when he or any other Faux Con does this from a national platform, MMfA will continue to point it out.
2) The passage of the current health coverage reform legislation will reduce the deficit over the next 10 years, not 10 years from now. The reduction is contrasted with projections of what will happen if we do nothing, like the party of 'No!' seems to favor. Being a wholly owned subsidiary of the health insurance industry, it doesn't seem very reasonable to expect the Republicans to look out for the interests of average working Americans. Karl Rove handsomely bears out this proposition. By lying. Again. In public.
Hey, we have Beach Property, it's just that danged California in the way!
Proof that health care reform will add to the deficit: "81% of people think so" and "Come on, you really think it will reduce the deficit?"
No matter how much the right wingers try to appear to be flag waving Americans I can't help but look at them as anti-American scum.
How bout if a participant in the cash for clunkers program has a policy that provides for abortion? Wouldn't that be illegal also under the Stupid amendment?
Not such a ridiculous thing when you read the language of the Stupid amendment.
If, however, this language passes, then abortions would be illegal for a health plan that receives only taxpayer dollars. No such seperation exists now. It may be anyone's opinion that it is some procedural loophole, but the fact is that if the health plan cannot show that it is able to fund abortions without tax dollars then it is not allowed to perform them.
Sounds open and honest to me.
A few hints. Me and the wife celebrated our 43rd yesterday (I still remember our wedding night saying to her, "you want me to put my mouth WHERE!?") :o)......
I served in VN.
I have three horses and five dogs.
Four kids and nine grandkids.