Doocy just can't stop misinforming about health care costs
Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy again promoted the false claim that health care reform is to blame for a projected rise in health care costs for the upcoming year. In fact, the cost increases are primarily due to changing workforce demographics and advances in medical technology.
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.
Doocy uses softball interview to wrongly blame increased costs on health care reform
Doocy: Reducing health care costs "all sounds great, but the new health care law may actually be having the exact opposite effect." On the October 1 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Doocy interviewed Republican congressional candidate James Milano. During the interview, Doocy advanced the false claim that a report projecting a rise in health care costs for the upcoming year was due to the effect of passing health care reform. From Fox & Friends:
PRESIDENT OBAMA [video clip]: Finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions -- families, businesses, and the federal government.
DOOCY: Well, that all sounds great, but the new health care law may actually be having the exact opposite effect. According to a new study by Hewitt Associates, U.S. employees will pay nearly $500 more out of their own pockets for health care in this next year, 2011, than they are paying right now. Researchers claim it's partially due to the new health care laws passed by Congress. With us right now is Dr. James Milano, a New York City doctor who is running for Congress with the hope of repealing the health care law. His opponent, Gary Ackerman, declined to appear on the show. Good morning to you.
MILANO: Thank you.
DOOCY: What happened?
MILANO: Well, I think the intention was to provide universal coverage for everyone, but in fact, the numbers that were used were actually a form of fuzzy math that's been brought up in the past. To think that you're going to bring down the cost of health care while -- while increasing or bringing 30 million more people on to the health care rolls was just faulty reasoning. In fact, they find now that in addition to cutting 500 billion from our senior citizens, which they should not be made to suffer for the -- for the --
DOOCY: Sure.
MILANO: -- the whole idea of people such as Gary Ackerman, Democrats who tried to push through an agenda to give the president a victory, something he sorely needed at the time.
DOOCY: Sure. But you know what, Doctor? There were estimates that it was going to cost more, and people who were promoting it were poo-pooing it, saying, no, no, no, costs are going to go down. And once people realize how good this thing is, everything is going to be great. We've got some statistics, for instance, companies, the premiums they pay per employee rising. Take a look at this -- for the companies, it's going to go up close to 800 bucks, and then we've got another detail -- and I mentioned it a moment ago -- out of pocket for employees, another 500 bucks.
In fact, report's author says increase is primarily due to aging workforce, advancements in medical technology
Chicago Tribune: Cost increases "primarily because [of] advances in medical technology and the increasing use of medical services by an aging population." A September 26 Chicago Tribune article reported that projected health care cost increases projected in the report Doocy mentioned are primarily due to advances in medical technology and an older workforce. The article reported that the increasing costs associated with an aging workforce have been exacerbated by the economic downturn because businesses "are hiring fewer younger people," whose premiums typically "absorb the costs of older employees." The article further reported that according to the report by Hewitt Associates, which produced the report by "using data from 350 major employers and more than 14 million health plan participants," health care reform is only a small and temporary part of the increase. From the Tribune:
Overall health care costs continue to rise 6 percent to 8 percent annually, primarily because advances in medical technology and the increasing use of medical services by an aging population.
And in the wake of the recession, employment trends also are affecting health care costs: Companies are hiring fewer younger people, so premiums paid by this segment of the working population who typically use fewer health services are not absorbing the costs of older employees who do.
"An older population tends to have chronic conditions like diabetes," [Hewitt Associates principal John] Vlajkovic said. "And when your hiring rates have slowed, you are not bringing in a younger work force."
Premiums are being affected by the implementation of the new federal health care law, but the impact is expected to be minimal.
"Health care reform has added to the cost burden, but that is only an additional percent or two," Vlajkovic said.
Tribune further notes that health care law eventually "could temper cost increases for everybody." The article also reported that once the health care law is fully implemented, it "could temper cost increases for everybody once the more than 30 million uninsured have coverage because it will spread risk over a larger population." From the Tribune:
Industry analysts have said the health law could temper cost increases for everybody once the more than 30 million uninsured have coverage because it will spread risk over a larger population. But that will take time. Although several major new consumer benefits started last week, this broadened coverage will not go into effect until 2014.
"Reform creates opportunities for meaningful change in how health care is delivered in the U.S., but most of these positive effects won't be felt for a few years," said Ken Sperling, Hewitt's health care practice leader. "In the meantime, employers continue to struggle to balance the significant health care needs of an aging work force with the economic realities of a difficult business environment."

















45 million of us don't, but Doocy thinks this is Fair?
I've Got Mine & Screw You? You have to be a "Friend" of "Fox" to feel this way.
Let the Poor Suffer, Let them eat bad food, Hell, they're gonna Die early Anyway.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Same things goes for things like TARP. NPR was covering peoples opinions about it this morning, and I was struck by how many people say it didn't work, becasue we're no better off than we were before they passed it. THAT'S NOT THE POINT PEOPLE! We would be a hell of a lot WORSE OFF if nothing had been done!
And net-and-net is premiums have to cost a little more in order ot prevent insurande companies from caprisiously decing that they can cut me off as soon as I need a claim paid? Or so they can't deny me or my family coverage if I change jobs (or get laid off)? So be it. I'd ratehr pay more and know it's goingt o be there for me, than give these thieves LESS money, only to have them keep all of it and screw me over if I ever need some of it back.
Doocy is (as usual) just being a mouthpiece for the Insurance Lobby and the Republican Party who pledges to repeal this but has no idea at all what they'll replace it with. (Save for the disastrous idea of robbing State regulators of their ability to make these fools stop screwing over their customers.)
But where we are NOW versus where we WERE? That a BS analysis. Almost never a valid point.
--------------------------------
IMHO
Same thing goes for things like TARP. NPR was covering peoples' opinions about it this morning, and I was struck by how many people say it didn't work, becasue we're no better off now than we were before they passed it. THAT'S NOT THE POINT PEOPLE! We would be a hell of a lot WORSE OFF now if nothing had been done!
And net-and-net if premiums have to cost a little more in order to prevent insurande companies from capriciously decidng to cut me off as soon as I need a claim paid? Or so they can't deny me or my family coverage if I change jobs (or get laid off)? So be it. I'd rather pay more and know it's goingt o be there for me, than give these thieves LESS money, only to have them keep all of it and screw me over if I ever need some of it back. (IOW: I'd rather pay $10 for something that works, that $5 for somethng that doesn't.)
Doocy is (as usual) just being a mouthpiece for the Insurance Lobby and the Republican Party - who pledges to repeal this but has no idea at all what they'll replace it with; save for the disastrous idea of robbing State regulators of their ability to make these fools stop screwing over their customers.
But comparing where we are NOW versus where we WERE? That a BS analysis. Almost never a valid point.
--------------------------------
IMHO
At least clowns like Beck and bullies like O'Reilly go full throttle with their accustations, as outrageous as they are. They don't hide behind "...some people say" type statments.
Doocy is the "May" Queen of cable television.
This year, AFTER the bill was passed, my premium went up less than 8% because, for the first time ever, BC&BS has to justify an increase, and faces refunding excessive charges to customers.
Randy