Healthcare reform bill--misrepresentations continue

[MaggieMae]

It's one thing to present legitimate concerns over the cost of the recently passed health care reform bill, but it's time for the lies about its contents and how it will be implemented to stop.

FactCheck Article:
More Malarkey About Health Care
The legislative debate is over, but the false and exaggerated claims just keep on coming.
April 19, 2010

Summary
We’ve seldom seen a piece of legislation so widely misrepresented, and misunderstood, as the new health care law. We stopped counting the number of articles and items we turned out on the subject after the total reached 100.

Some of that is understandable. The debate went on for more than a year, while the different House and Senate bills changed their shape constantly. The final law was the product of an awkward two-step legislative dance that first enacted the Senate’s version, then quickly amended it with a reconciliation "fix." No wonder people are confused.

And even now the misrepresentations continue. The new law is no longer a moving target, but some opponents persist in making false or exaggerated claims about it. Our inboxes are filled with messages asking about assertions that the new law:

* Requires patients to be implanted with microchips. (No, it doesn’t.)

* Cuts benefits for military families and retirees. (No. The TRICARE program isn’t affected.)

* Exempts Muslims from the requirement to obtain coverage. (Not specifically. It does have a religious exemption, but that is intended for Old Order Amish.)

* Allows insurance companies to continue denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions. (Insurance companies have agreed not to exploit a loophole that might have allowed this.)

* Will require 16,500 armed IRS agents to enforce. (No. Criminal penalties are waived.)

* Gives President Obama a Nazi-like "private army." (No. It provides a reserve corps of doctors and other health workers for emergencies.)

* "Exempts" House and Senate members. (No. Their coverage may not be as good as before, in fact.)

* Covers erectile-dysfunction drugs for sex offenders. (Just as it was before the new law, those no longer in jail can buy any insurance plan they choose.)

* Provides federal funding for abortions. (Not directly. But neither side in the abortion debate is happy with the law.)

More Malarkey About Health Care | FactCheck.org

For details on these claims about the new law, please read our Analysis section.

 

[Oddball]

Seems CherryPickedFactCheck left out the biggest misrepresentation (i.e. outright lie) of all:

Obunglercare will drive down costs.

 

[MaggieMae]

Seems CherryPickedFactCheck left out the biggest misrepresentation (i.e. outright lie) of all:

Obunglercare will drive down costs.

There are several other FactCheck analyses that discuss the cost. This one simply analyzes exactly what it says it does. Also, I SAID at the outset that there is legitimate concern over the cost. Sir.

 

[Oddball]

Right...You did, but CherryPickedFactCheck didn't.

I thought that was pretty clear, too.

 

[MaggieMae]

Right...You did, but CherryPickedFactCheck didn't.

I thought that was pretty clear, too.

They have done hundreds of analyses on various aspects, to repeat, this being just one. What part of that can't you get?

Here's a list of all the others, many of which are NOT favorable:

Search Results | FactCheck.org

 

[Old Rocks]

Ol' Dooodeeee...... is not going to accept anything favorable about any bill that President Obama has supported.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear MM:
1. RE: Private army
it DOES expand IRS jurisdiction to start policing whether individuals have purchased approved health insurance for themselves AND all dependents or else pay a fine up to 2.5% of their salary that is charged as a tax. Failure to pay taxes results in the same procedures the IRS already abuses, which amounts to harassment of lawabiding citizens.

Wouldn't you rather the IRS and lawyers go after corporate crooks for repayment to taxpayers of billions of dollars to fund this, instead of penalizing citizens for not wanting to buy health insurance?

2. RE: religious exemption and amendment for states to opt out
A. religious groups must be a 501(c)(3) in existence since 1999 whose members share medical expenses because of their beliefs. What about free healing ministries that don't charge for medical expenses, but save their money to pay for housing and food for the needy? So all the taxpayers who used to donate to them have to pay for insurance instead? My point is the narrow exemptions discriminate by religious structure, and don't cover all people equally.

B. As for the amendment for states to opt out
Why are states required to prove how much coverage they provide "without adding to the federal deficit" while the federal plan does not have to prove it meets those standards? Would I have to medically prove that free spiritual healing medically is more effective and universal in coverage, before I have the right to fund that instead of federal plans? So supporters of this bill can establish and impose their beliefs by legislation, buth mine must be proven?

3. RE: pre-existing conditions and unhealthy behavior
Insurance companies have the right to charge up to 50% more for cases of unhealthy behavior. There is nothing to stop companies from increasing premiums to cover the new provisions; so in the end, the consumers and taxpayers must pay the difference (including the cost of covering services for people who can't pay)

Would you agree to a law forcing you to buy car insurance at rates high enough to pay for the accidents and dangerous driving of people who can't afford their own insurance?

4. RE: as for pro-choice and pro-life concerns
A. Can you explain how anyone could justify passing this bill, in violation of the free choice and consent of strong opposition who defend individual freedom from federal mandates on private insurance, while rejecting pro-life arguments for legislation out of "defense of free choice." (Likewise, I hope pro-life advocates can understand why you don't pass legislation, even with the intent to protect lives deemed endangered, by overriding free choice and consent as a common Constitutional principle, regardless of political belief.)

B. This flawed bill that violates the concept of free choice could used politically to discredit and remove all pro-choice Democrat supporters from office, replacing them with a majority of pro-life Republicans. If so, we could go through this SAME battle all over again with a majority pushing pro-life legislation with or without respect for free choice. How long can this nonsense go back and forth? Are we on a learning curve? Or roller coaster?

It's one thing to present legitimate concerns over the cost of the recently passed health care reform bill, but it's time for the lies about its contents and how it will be implemented to stop.

FactCheck Article:
More Malarkey About Health Care
The legislative debate is over, but the false and exaggerated claims just keep on coming.
April 19, 2010

Summary
We’ve seldom seen a piece of legislation so widely misrepresented, and misunderstood, as the new health care law. We stopped counting the number of articles and items we turned out on the subject after the total reached 100.

Some of that is understandable. The debate went on for more than a year, while the different House and Senate bills changed their shape constantly. The final law was the product of an awkward two-step legislative dance that first enacted the Senate’s version, then quickly amended it with a reconciliation "fix." No wonder people are confused.

And even now the misrepresentations continue. The new law is no longer a moving target, but some opponents persist in making false or exaggerated claims about it. Our inboxes are filled with messages asking about assertions that the new law:

* Requires patients to be implanted with microchips. (No, it doesn’t.)

* Cuts benefits for military families and retirees. (No. The TRICARE program isn’t affected.)

* Exempts Muslims from the requirement to obtain coverage. (Not specifically. It does have a religious exemption, but that is intended for Old Order Amish.)

* Allows insurance companies to continue denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions. (Insurance companies have agreed not to exploit a loophole that might have allowed this.)

* Will require 16,500 armed IRS agents to enforce. (No. Criminal penalties are waived.)

* Gives President Obama a Nazi-like "private army." (No. It provides a reserve corps of doctors and other health workers for emergencies.)

* "Exempts" House and Senate members. (No. Their coverage may not be as good as before, in fact.)

* Covers erectile-dysfunction drugs for sex offenders. (Just as it was before the new law, those no longer in jail can buy any insurance plan they choose.)

* Provides federal funding for abortions. (Not directly. But neither side in the abortion debate is happy with the law.)

More Malarkey About Health Care | FactCheck.org

For details on these claims about the new law, please read our Analysis section.

 

[boedicca]

The Medicare Actuary says it will increase costs.

 

[emilynghiem]

Seems CherryPickedFactCheck left out the biggest misrepresentation (i.e. outright lie) of all:

Obunglercare will drive down costs.

There are several other FactCheck analyses that discuss the cost. This one simply analyzes exactly what it says it does. Also, I SAID at the outset that there is legitimate concern over the cost. Sir.

Dear MM: If you are supporting, accepting, justifying, or teaching this bill as constitutional, I hope you accept financial responsibility for its costs, and not pass the buck to others. I would not hold opponents responsible, but only people who support or enforce this bill. If you expect other people to pay for it, please make sure they consent first. Otherwise, you are potentially participating in political fraud, like teaching people it's okay for a policy to charge things onto someone's account without their consent. I think that makes you partly responsible for unfair charges or costs, if you teach or encourage such policy in any way.

The only lawful, Constitutional and ethical way I know to interpret this bill, is it must be applied by consent and participation and funding must be voluntary, as a public option.
Unless people agree to its provisions, it is unconstitutional to impose by federal authority, because it crosses lines of jurisidiction that belong with the state, church and people.

Note: by economic considerations alone, it is in violation of the Code of Ethics for Government Service which calls federal officials to seek to employ the most efficient and economical means of getting tasks accomplished (http://www.ethics-commission.net) Clearly this bill misses the mark, in both its provisions, and the division over it which adds to the waste of time and resources better invested on solutions. The most cost-effective form of universal health care I know is free spiritual healing, which cannot be imposed or regulated by government, but only works on a voluntary basis.

 

[saveliberty]

The most consistent misrepresentations on health care reform have come from the White House and the Democratic leadership. The plan would be affordable, available to all Americans and be quality care. In reality it is going to cost more, leave out millions of Americans and require rationing.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Seems CherryPickedFactCheck left out the biggest misrepresentation (i.e. outright lie) of all:

Obunglercare will drive down costs.

ObamaCare Mulligan: Readying Price Controls for Insurance - WSJ.com

When President Obama signed his health-care reform last month, he declared it will "lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government." So why, barely a month later, are Democrats scrambling to pass a new bill that would impose price controls on insurance?

In now-they-tell-us hearings on Tuesday, the Senate health committee debated a bill that would give states the power to reject premium increases that state regulators determine are "unreasonable." The White House proposed this just before the final Obama- Care scramble, but it couldn't be included because it violated the procedural rules that Democrats abused to pass the bill.

Some 27 states currently have some form of rate review in the individual and small-business markets, but they generally don't leverage it in a political way because insolvent insurers are expensive for states and bankruptcies limit consumer choices. One exception is Massachusetts: Governor Deval Patrick is now using this regulatory power to create de facto price controls and assail the state's insurers as cover for the explosive costs resulting from the ObamaCare prototype the Bay State passed in 2006.

National Democrats now want the power to do the same across the country, because they know how unrealistic their cost-control claims really are. Democrats are petrified they'll get the blame they deserve when insurance costs inevitably spike. So the purpose of this latest Senate bill is to have a pre-emptive political response on hand.

ObamaCare includes several new cost-driving mandates that take effect immediately, including expanding family coverage for children as old as 26 and banning consumer co-payments for preventive care. Democrats are bragging about these "benefits," but they aren't free and their cost will be built into premiums. And those are merely teasers for the many Washington-created dysfunctions that will soon distort insurance markets.

In Massachusetts, Mr. Patrick says his price-control sally will be followed by reviewing what doctors and hospitals charge—or in other words for price controls on the medical services that make up most health spending. ObamaCare will gradually move in the same direction.

Or maybe not so gradually, judging by the study released last last week by Richard Foster, the Obama Administration's Medicare actuary. Mr. Foster predicts net national health spending will increase by about 1% annually above the status quo that is already estimated to be $4.7 trillion in 2019. This is one more rebuke to the White House fantasy that a new entitlement will lower health costs.

"Although several provisions would help to reduce health care cost growth, their impact would be more than offset through 2019 by the higher health expenditures resulting from the coverage expansions," Mr. Foster writes—and that's assuming everything goes according to plan. He considers it "plausible and even probable" that prices in the private market will rise as greater demand due to subsidized coverage runs into the relatively fixed supply of doctors and hospitals.

Most of ObamaCare's unrealistic "savings" come from cranking down the way Medicare calculates its price controls, and Mr. Foster writes that they'll grow "more slowly than, and in a way that was unrelated to, the providers' costs of furnishing services to beneficiaries." He expects that 15% of hospital budgets may be driven into deficits, thus "possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries." Isn't reform grand?

The official who will preside over this fiscal trainwreck is Donald Berwick, the Harvard professor and chief of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement who the White House has nominated to run Medicare. Dr. Berwick explained in an interview last year that the British National Health Service has "developed very good and very disciplined, scientifically grounded, policy-connected models for the evaluation of medical treatments from which we ought to learn." He added that "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care—the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly."

In fact, the real choice with medical care, as with any good or service, is between rationing via politics and bureaucratic lines or via a competitive market and prices. As Democrats are showing by trying to pass a new insurance bill, they want all U.S. health care to function like price-controlled Medicare. Dr. Berwick's job as the country's largest purchaser of health care will be to find ways to offset the higher insurance and medical costs that ObamaCare's subsidies and mandates will cause, which will inevitably mean political rationing of care.

In a 17-minute, 2,600-word answer to a question about tax increases in Charlotte, North Carolina earlier this month, Mr. Obama mentioned that "what we've done is we've embedded in how Medicare reimburses, how Medicaid reimburses, all these ideas to actually reduce the costs of care." The embedding via price controls is already underway.

I love saying I told you so.

 

[MaggieMae]

Seems CherryPickedFactCheck left out the biggest misrepresentation (i.e. outright lie) of all:

Obunglercare will drive down costs.

ObamaCare Mulligan: Readying Price Controls for Insurance - WSJ.com

When President Obama signed his health-care reform last month, he declared it will "lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government." So why, barely a month later, are Democrats scrambling to pass a new bill that would impose price controls on insurance?

In now-they-tell-us hearings on Tuesday, the Senate health committee debated a bill that would give states the power to reject premium increases that state regulators determine are "unreasonable." The White House proposed this just before the final Obama- Care scramble, but it couldn't be included because it violated the procedural rules that Democrats abused to pass the bill.

Some 27 states currently have some form of rate review in the individual and small-business markets, but they generally don't leverage it in a political way because insolvent insurers are expensive for states and bankruptcies limit consumer choices. One exception is Massachusetts: Governor Deval Patrick is now using this regulatory power to create de facto price controls and assail the state's insurers as cover for the explosive costs resulting from the ObamaCare prototype the Bay State passed in 2006.

National Democrats now want the power to do the same across the country, because they know how unrealistic their cost-control claims really are. Democrats are petrified they'll get the blame they deserve when insurance costs inevitably spike. So the purpose of this latest Senate bill is to have a pre-emptive political response on hand.

ObamaCare includes several new cost-driving mandates that take effect immediately, including expanding family coverage for children as old as 26 and banning consumer co-payments for preventive care. Democrats are bragging about these "benefits," but they aren't free and their cost will be built into premiums. And those are merely teasers for the many Washington-created dysfunctions that will soon distort insurance markets.

In Massachusetts, Mr. Patrick says his price-control sally will be followed by reviewing what doctors and hospitals charge—or in other words for price controls on the medical services that make up most health spending. ObamaCare will gradually move in the same direction.

Or maybe not so gradually, judging by the study released last last week by Richard Foster, the Obama Administration's Medicare actuary. Mr. Foster predicts net national health spending will increase by about 1% annually above the status quo that is already estimated to be $4.7 trillion in 2019. This is one more rebuke to the White House fantasy that a new entitlement will lower health costs.

"Although several provisions would help to reduce health care cost growth, their impact would be more than offset through 2019 by the higher health expenditures resulting from the coverage expansions," Mr. Foster writes—and that's assuming everything goes according to plan. He considers it "plausible and even probable" that prices in the private market will rise as greater demand due to subsidized coverage runs into the relatively fixed supply of doctors and hospitals.

Most of ObamaCare's unrealistic "savings" come from cranking down the way Medicare calculates its price controls, and Mr. Foster writes that they'll grow "more slowly than, and in a way that was unrelated to, the providers' costs of furnishing services to beneficiaries." He expects that 15% of hospital budgets may be driven into deficits, thus "possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries." Isn't reform grand?

The official who will preside over this fiscal trainwreck is Donald Berwick, the Harvard professor and chief of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement who the White House has nominated to run Medicare. Dr. Berwick explained in an interview last year that the British National Health Service has "developed very good and very disciplined, scientifically grounded, policy-connected models for the evaluation of medical treatments from which we ought to learn." He added that "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care—the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly."

In fact, the real choice with medical care, as with any good or service, is between rationing via politics and bureaucratic lines or via a competitive market and prices. As Democrats are showing by trying to pass a new insurance bill, they want all U.S. health care to function like price-controlled Medicare. Dr. Berwick's job as the country's largest purchaser of health care will be to find ways to offset the higher insurance and medical costs that ObamaCare's subsidies and mandates will cause, which will inevitably mean political rationing of care.

In a 17-minute, 2,600-word answer to a question about tax increases in Charlotte, North Carolina earlier this month, Mr. Obama mentioned that "what we've done is we've embedded in how Medicare reimburses, how Medicaid reimburses, all these ideas to actually reduce the costs of care." The embedding via price controls is already underway.

I love saying I told you so.

There was never any claim that the bill would stand AS-IS ad infinitum. It was a given that it would need revisions and amendments. Most major policy bills do.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Seems CherryPickedFactCheck left out the biggest misrepresentation (i.e. outright lie) of all:

Obunglercare will drive down costs.

ObamaCare Mulligan: Readying Price Controls for Insurance - WSJ.com

When President Obama signed his health-care reform last month, he declared it will "lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government." So why, barely a month later, are Democrats scrambling to pass a new bill that would impose price controls on insurance?

In now-they-tell-us hearings on Tuesday, the Senate health committee debated a bill that would give states the power to reject premium increases that state regulators determine are "unreasonable." The White House proposed this just before the final Obama- Care scramble, but it couldn't be included because it violated the procedural rules that Democrats abused to pass the bill.

Some 27 states currently have some form of rate review in the individual and small-business markets, but they generally don't leverage it in a political way because insolvent insurers are expensive for states and bankruptcies limit consumer choices. One exception is Massachusetts: Governor Deval Patrick is now using this regulatory power to create de facto price controls and assail the state's insurers as cover for the explosive costs resulting from the ObamaCare prototype the Bay State passed in 2006.

National Democrats now want the power to do the same across the country, because they know how unrealistic their cost-control claims really are. Democrats are petrified they'll get the blame they deserve when insurance costs inevitably spike. So the purpose of this latest Senate bill is to have a pre-emptive political response on hand.

ObamaCare includes several new cost-driving mandates that take effect immediately, including expanding family coverage for children as old as 26 and banning consumer co-payments for preventive care. Democrats are bragging about these "benefits," but they aren't free and their cost will be built into premiums. And those are merely teasers for the many Washington-created dysfunctions that will soon distort insurance markets.

In Massachusetts, Mr. Patrick says his price-control sally will be followed by reviewing what doctors and hospitals charge—or in other words for price controls on the medical services that make up most health spending. ObamaCare will gradually move in the same direction.

Or maybe not so gradually, judging by the study released last last week by Richard Foster, the Obama Administration's Medicare actuary. Mr. Foster predicts net national health spending will increase by about 1% annually above the status quo that is already estimated to be $4.7 trillion in 2019. This is one more rebuke to the White House fantasy that a new entitlement will lower health costs.

"Although several provisions would help to reduce health care cost growth, their impact would be more than offset through 2019 by the higher health expenditures resulting from the coverage expansions," Mr. Foster writes—and that's assuming everything goes according to plan. He considers it "plausible and even probable" that prices in the private market will rise as greater demand due to subsidized coverage runs into the relatively fixed supply of doctors and hospitals.

Most of ObamaCare's unrealistic "savings" come from cranking down the way Medicare calculates its price controls, and Mr. Foster writes that they'll grow "more slowly than, and in a way that was unrelated to, the providers' costs of furnishing services to beneficiaries." He expects that 15% of hospital budgets may be driven into deficits, thus "possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries." Isn't reform grand?

The official who will preside over this fiscal trainwreck is Donald Berwick, the Harvard professor and chief of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement who the White House has nominated to run Medicare. Dr. Berwick explained in an interview last year that the British National Health Service has "developed very good and very disciplined, scientifically grounded, policy-connected models for the evaluation of medical treatments from which we ought to learn." He added that "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care—the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly."

In fact, the real choice with medical care, as with any good or service, is between rationing via politics and bureaucratic lines or via a competitive market and prices. As Democrats are showing by trying to pass a new insurance bill, they want all U.S. health care to function like price-controlled Medicare. Dr. Berwick's job as the country's largest purchaser of health care will be to find ways to offset the higher insurance and medical costs that ObamaCare's subsidies and mandates will cause, which will inevitably mean political rationing of care.

In a 17-minute, 2,600-word answer to a question about tax increases in Charlotte, North Carolina earlier this month, Mr. Obama mentioned that "what we've done is we've embedded in how Medicare reimburses, how Medicaid reimburses, all these ideas to actually reduce the costs of care." The embedding via price controls is already underway.

I love saying I told you so.

There was never any claim that the bill would stand AS-IS ad infinitum. It was a given that it would need revisions and amendments. Most major policy bills do.

Where did I ever say it wouldn't be changed?

I said that no matter what is changed in the bill that it would never ever lower insurance costs.