FACT CHECK: Spinning the new health care law

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100323/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_fact_check

FACT CHECK: Spinning the new health care law

Obama after health care bill: helped or hurt?


AP – President Barack Obama waves in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, March 23, … By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – Tue Mar 23, 5:26 pm ET
WASHINGTON – The tumultuous health care debate that brought you death panels and socialism has spun off a catalog of popular myths that will keep growing as President Barack Obama and all sides battle toward the midterm elections this fall.

At a White House signing ceremony Tuesday, Obama ventured the hope that Americans on all sides will judge the legislation for what it actually says and does. "When I sign this bill," he declared, "all of the overheated rhetoric over reform will finally confront the reality of reform."

Wishful thinking, Mr. President.

Facts are stubborn, the saying goes. But myths about the legislation are likely to persist as well. And a lot of people don't agree on which is which.

"People have taken away from the debate a number of beliefs about the bill that are very difficult to shake based on objective reports," said Robert Blendon, a Harvard public health professor who follows opinion trends. "There is enough skepticism out there that questions about how it's going to help the country are likely to continue."

Here's a look at some of the myths and realities, from both sides of the issue:

• Obama has put the nation on a slippery slope toward socialism.

Hello? Government's role in health care has been steadily growing since Medicare and Medicaid were established 45 years ago. Even if Republicans were to take control of Washington and repeal this bill, government would still be on track to pick up more than half the nation's health care tab by 2012, according to a report last month from Medicare.

"The Republican myth is that the government is for the first time going to take over the health care sector," said economist Joe Antos of the business-oriented American Enterprise Institute. "The takeover was probably largely accomplished in 1965 with the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. Since the early days, Medicare has called the shots on a lot of policy issues that private insurance fell in line with."

Still, the new law will undoubtedly expand the government's influence. Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., warned Tuesday it will lead to the "quasi-nationalization of the health industry."

Underline "quasi." Democrats dropped their idea of a government insurance plan to compete with private carriers. So any "socialization" will be channeled through Wellpoint, UnitedHealthcare and other private insurance giants.

• Health care overhaul is going to lower your health insurance premiums.

Obama says that once new competitive insurance markets open for business, in 2014, individuals buying coverage comparable to what they have today will pay 14-20 percent less. Family coverage costs about $13,400 a year, so that could be real money.

But the president's assurance is based on a selective reading of a Congressional Budget Office report that found most individuals would probably buy better, more expensive coverage than what's available today.

And Obama skips over an important caveat: The budget office didn't say premiums would be lower than currently. It said premiums for some people would be lower than they would have been without the bill. Premiums for others would be higher.

With the U.S. population getting older, and medical science pushing the technological envelope, there's very little reason to think premiums will go down. The best Obama can hope for is to slow the pace of increases.

• You will be forced to pay for other people's abortions.

Only if you join a health insurance plan that covers abortion. In that case, the costs of paying for abortions would be spread over all the enrollees in the plan — no differently from how other medical procedures are handled, except a policyholder would have to write a separate check for it.

Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University, said people who don't want to pay for abortion could simply pick a plan that doesn't offer it.

There would definitely be a demand for such plans, and not just from people with moral objections. Single men and older women would have no reason to pay an extra premium for abortion coverage.

• The Democratic bill will lead to government health care rationing.

The legislation sets up a research center to compare the effectiveness of medical treatments, and critics fear that bureaucrats will start issuing justifications for denying patients access to the latest medical technology.

Republicans as well as Democrats had previously called for a major investment in such research to help make sense of which kinds of treatments, medications and technologies are worth the cost.

The legislation specifies that the research findings cannot be used to impose mandates, guidelines or recommendations for payment, coverage, or treatment — or used to deny coverage.

Acceptance of the research is likely to be slow in coming, and the medical community — not government and insurance companies — will probably take the lead in vetting it.

• The American people have already rejected Obamacare.

Although some polls show a majority oppose the bill, most surveys find the public about evenly divided. Blendon, the public opinion expert, believes it's premature to say that the public has rejected it. Curiously, many individual components — doing away with insurance denials for pre-existing conditions, tax credits to help pay premiums, insurance purchasing pools — are widely popular.

Obama reads those findings to mean that Democrats have a chance to turn around public opinion, and he's embarking on a campaign to sell the bill.

• The legislation will save Medicare from bankruptcy.

Democrats say the bill — even as it cuts Medicare to pay for expanded coverage for working families — will add at least nine years of solvency to the program's giant hospital insurance trust fund, now projected to be exhausted in 2017.

Technically that's true — but only on paper.

Savings from the Medicare cuts will be invested in government IOUs, like any other trust fund surplus. The special Treasury securities count as an asset on Medicare's books — making the program's precarious financial situation seem more reassuring. But the government will spend the actual money. And when time comes for Medicare to redeem the IOUs, lawmakers will have to scramble to come up with the cash.

The key point is that the Medicare savings will be received by the government only once, the Congressional Budget Office said, "so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending ... on other programs."

I will acknowledge that there are more good things than bad in this bill but for those who are counting on the public to not like this legislation..good luck with that.. I expect "they already do..polls show it..." with the bill being passed some of those people will actually find out what is in the bill beyond the rhetoric and find things they like about it.

[coyotes_geek]

Savings from the Medicare cuts will be invested in government IOUs, like any other trust fund surplus. The special Treasury securities count as an asset on Medicare's books — making the program's precarious financial situation seem more reassuring. But the government will spend the actual money. And when time comes for Medicare to redeem the IOUs, lawmakers will have to scramble to come up with the cash.


I know, I know. It's only medicare and we're all much happier just sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that there's nothing wrong with it. Still, for the select few people who actually do choose to acknowledge that something is amiss, the concept of Obama&Co funding the reform bill by turning medicare into a credit card should be sending up red flags. Just borrow half a trillion from medicare today, let someone else worry about how to pay it back later.

[spursncowboys]

last year every politician said medicare had to be reformed. So what happened?

[George Gervin's Afro]

last year every politician said medicare had to be reformed. So what happened?

you mean't the last 10 yrs right?

[coyotes_geek]

last year every politician said medicare had to be reformed. So what happened?

The same thing that always happens. The self serving politicians realized that handing out more "free stuff" on the taxpayers tab would buy them more votes than would telling the taxpayers that it was time to pay up.

[Sec24Row7]

Yahoo news has and always will be a liberal rag.

[EVAY]

GGA, Thanks for the find and the posting. It is always refreshing to encounter a calmly presented clarification of facts.

I know that some posters (e.g. 24-7) will find the presentation merits an ad hominem attack, but it is genuinely nice to find rationality in this discussion, and I thank you.

[George Gervin's Afro]

GGA, Thanks for the find and the posting. It is always refreshing to encounter a calmly presented clarification of facts.

I know that some posters (e.g. 24-7) will find the presentation merits an ad hominem attack, but it is genuinely nice to find rationality in this discussion, and I thank you.

I find myself to be a moderate democrat. I cringe everytime I hear the far right clamoring for the elimination of moderates in their party.... I like moderate republicans. I like them so much I ALMOST voted for Mccain .. unfortunately when he picked his VP I decided on Obama...

[EVAY]

I find myself to be a moderate democrat. I cringe everytime I hear the far right clamoring for the elimination of moderates in their party.... I like moderate republicans. I like them so much I ALMOST voted for Mccain .. unfortunately when he picked his VP I decided on Obama...

join the crowd.

[RandomGuy]

Yahoo news has and always will be a liberal rag.

Translation:

"Anything that isn't rabidly conservative is liberal, so since it doesn't cater to my every belief, Yahoo news must be a liberal rag."


:rolleyes

God forbid anything that might run counter to your pre-established beliefs ever get past your own self-imposed censorship.

pfft.

[rjv]

About 23 million people will remain uninsured nine years out. That figure translates into an estimated 23,000 unnecessary deaths annually and an incalculable toll of suffering.

Millions of middle-income people will be pressured to buy commercial health insurance policies costing up to 9.5 percent of their income but covering an average of only 70 percent of their medical expenses, potentially leaving them vulnerable to financial ruin if they become seriously ill. Many will find such policies too expensive to afford or, if they do buy them, too expensive to use because of the high co-pays and deductibles.

Insurance firms will be handed at least $447 billion in taxpayer money to subsidize the purchase of their shoddy products. This money will enhance their financial and political power, and with it their ability to block future reform.

The bill will drain about $40 billion from Medicare payments to safety-net hospitals, threatening the care of the tens of millions who will remain uninsured.

People with employer-based coverage will be locked into their plan's limited network of providers, face ever-rising costs and erosion of their health benefits. Many, even most, will eventually face steep taxes on their benefits as the cost of insurance grows.

Health care costs will continue to skyrocket, as the experience with the Massachusetts plan (after which this bill is patterned) amply demonstrates.

The much-vaunted insurance regulations - e.g. ending denials on the basis of pre-existing conditions - are riddled with loopholes, thanks to the central role that insurers played in crafting the legislation. Older people can be charged up to three times more than their younger counterparts, and large companies with a predominantly female workforce can be charged higher gender-based rates at least until 2017.

Women's reproductive rights will be further eroded, thanks to the burdensome segregation of insurance funds for abortion and for all other medical services.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2010/march/pro-single-payer-doctors-health-bill-leaves-23-million-uninsured

[Sec24Row7]

Translation:

"Anything that isn't rabidly conservative is liberal, so since it doesn't cater to my every belief, Yahoo news must be a liberal rag."


:rolleyes

God forbid anything that might run counter to your pre-established beliefs ever get past your own self-imposed censorship.

pfft.

No.

That's just the way I feel about Yahoo news.

Unfortunately for you I am one of the people that cannot be called a sheep for not liking this health care bill. I am one of the people who is going to be taxed extra to pay for this thing. I know we are just a measly little 5% or something so we don't matter in the voting records, but no amount of your posturing is going to convince me or anyone else that this isn't a shitty deal for ME and people like me.

[RandomGuy]

No.

That's just the way I feel about Yahoo news.

Unfortunately for you I am one of the people that cannot be called a sheep for not liking this health care bill. I am one of the people who is going to be taxed extra to pay for this thing. I know we are just a measly little 5% or something so we don't matter in the voting records, but no amount of your posturing is going to convince me or anyone else that this isn't a shitty deal for ME and people like me.

Fair enough. Sorry then for being a bit of a douchebag there.

I have started to get an all-too-viceral reaction to people who complain about "liberal media", as many tend to think that to be "fair and balanced" requires pandering to the viewpoint they agree with most over actual fairness.

[RandomGuy]

I find myself to be a moderate democrat. I cringe everytime I hear the far right clamoring for the elimination of moderates in their party.... I like moderate republicans. I like them so much I ALMOST voted for Mccain .. unfortunately when he picked his VP I decided on Obama...

+1

I still had a McCain 2000 t-shirt in my closet somewhere until a recent wardrobe purge. Should have kept it as a convo piece.

[DarrinS]

I find myself to be a moderate democrat. I cringe everytime I hear the far right clamoring for the elimination of moderates in their party.... I like moderate republicans. I like them so much I ALMOST voted for Mccain .. unfortunately when he picked his VP I decided on Obama...



Did you cringe when the Dems went after Stupak?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Did you cringe when the Dems went after Stupak?

What 'dems' are you talking about? Stupak got his provision in the bill so what's your point? If they would have told him to 'f' off then I would have cringed.. I despise the far left as mush as I despise the far right...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

About 23 million people will remain uninsured nine years out. That figure translates into an estimated 23,000 unnecessary deaths annually and an incalculable toll of suffering.

Millions of middle-income people will be pressured to buy commercial health insurance policies costing up to 9.5 percent of their income but covering an average of only 70 percent of their medical expenses, potentially leaving them vulnerable to financial ruin if they become seriously ill. Many will find such policies too expensive to afford or, if they do buy them, too expensive to use because of the high co-pays and deductibles.

Insurance firms will be handed at least $447 billion in taxpayer money to subsidize the purchase of their shoddy products. This money will enhance their financial and political power, and with it their ability to block future reform.

The bill will drain about $40 billion from Medicare payments to safety-net hospitals, threatening the care of the tens of millions who will remain uninsured.

People with employer-based coverage will be locked into their plan's limited network of providers, face ever-rising costs and erosion of their health benefits. Many, even most, will eventually face steep taxes on their benefits as the cost of insurance grows.

Health care costs will continue to skyrocket, as the experience with the Massachusetts plan (after which this bill is patterned) amply demonstrates.

The much-vaunted insurance regulations - e.g. ending denials on the basis of pre-existing conditions - are riddled with loopholes, thanks to the central role that insurers played in crafting the legislation. Older people can be charged up to three times more than their younger counterparts, and large companies with a predominantly female workforce can be charged higher gender-based rates at least until 2017.

Women's reproductive rights will be further eroded, thanks to the burdensome segregation of insurance funds for abortion and for all other medical services.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2010/march/pro-single-payer-doctors-health-bill-leaves-23-million-uninsured

This is awesome spin. The figures from before were 45k deaths so it cuts it in half.

Old people should take more and the health insurers wanted far more than 3 times the premium. The people that really are getting hosed here as a whole are young people age 18-30 who are going to have to pick up the slack for those 65+ because 65+ use more than 3 times as much health care as young males in particular.

When you see mischaracterizations like this you can tell its just political bullshit. Its really easy to cater to young men against this bill because they are getting a really raw deal here. Young men don't vote at nearly the rate as seniors so you spin it to appeal to them.

Its such a crock of shit.

[Winehole23]

hTwUlvd6neY

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Stupak got his provision in the bill

no sir. it's not in the bill.

[Winehole23]

You are correct, VLE. This (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/away-from-the-cameras-president-obama-to-sign-executive-order-on-abortion.html)was Stupak's cover for voting for the Senate version.

[Winehole23]

An executive order backing him up, FWIW.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

fully aware. :toast

[Winehole23]

Obama stepped up and owned the Hyde Amendment. No golf clap?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Obama stepped up and owned the Hyde Amendment.
3 days later, but yeah.

[Winehole23]

3 days later, but yeah.It took him too long? :lol

[Viva Las Espuelas]

It took him too long? :lol
bills are law. executive orders can be changed at anytime. that's the point i'm trying to make. forest, not tree.

[George Gervin's Afro]

bills are law. executive orders can be changed at anytime. that's the point i'm trying to make. forest, not tree.

so stupak got what he wanted..

[Viva Las Espuelas]

so stupak got what he wanted..

Outside of the actual bill, three days later, yes. Not the way you stated that it was in bill. That is correct. Yes.

[Sec24Row7]

Fair enough. Sorry then for being a bit of a douchebag there.

I have started to get an all-too-viceral reaction to people who complain about "liberal media", as many tend to think that to be "fair and balanced" requires pandering to the viewpoint they agree with most over actual fairness.

Thanks.

The problem with any article titled "fact check" is that it purports to be an accurate portrayal of the "truth" which is always open to interpretation.

If it's a true "fact check"... then print the 2500 pages of the bill... that's the only "truth" that there is...

But the reader then comes up with his own interpretation...

:lol

[Winehole23]

bills are law. executive orders can be changed at anytime. that's the point i'm trying to make. forest, not tree.I hear you. Obama could set it aside on a whim.

[Winehole23]

so stupak got what he wanted..What you said was literally wrong. VLE just owned you. This puny comeback availed you nothing.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I hear you. Obama could set it aside on a whim.

Maybe. I don't think he's that dumb. Errr. Someone might take the fall. Who knows. It shouldve been written in the bill, contrary to what georgy states. Ahem.

[George Gervin's Afro]

What you said was literally wrong. VLE just owned you. This puny comeback availed you nothing.

ooohhhh

[Winehole23]

Fall guy?

[rjv]

This is awesome spin. The figures from before were 45k deaths so it cuts it in half.

Old people should take more and the health insurers wanted far more than 3 times the premium. The people that really are getting hosed here as a whole are young people age 18-30 who are going to have to pick up the slack for those 65+ because 65+ use more than 3 times as much health care as young males in particular.

When you see mischaracterizations like this you can tell its just political bullshit. Its really easy to cater to young men against this bill because they are getting a really raw deal here. Young men don't vote at nearly the rate as seniors so you spin it to appeal to them.

Its such a crock of shit.

ah. the metalanguage of debate. call some one else's take on an issue "spin" but fail to categorize your own details within that set.

apparently the institute of medicine which defined five criteria for healthcare reform: that it should not be tied to a job, be affordable for individuals and families, affordable for society, and also provide access to high-quality care for everyone.


so massachussetts has the same plan in place essentially that was just passed and so far it has been a failure.

the state has more than 200,000 without coverage, and the count is going up with rising unemployment.

for an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments and low-income residents, previously eligible for free care, have insurance policies requiring unaffordable copayments for office visits and medications.

spending for the mass. subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to $1.3 billion for 2009.

the cambridge health alliance was forced to interrupt care for HIV and even cancers that could be treated with chemotherapy.
partners healthcare, which includes two major tertiary care hospitals in boston, was able to negotiate a secret agreement with blue cross to be paid 30 percent more for their services than other providers in the state, contributing to an increase in healthcare costs for that state which are already the highest per person in the world.

so massachusetts healthcare reform fails the institute of medicine criteria. but somehow congress made it a model for the nation. an article from The Milbank Quarterly, by brandeis health policy experts, studied how Massachusetts has handled the insurance requirement since 2006 and described the lessons policymakers have learned. the suthor of the article stated this : "While Massachusetts, like the rest of the country, still has problems with rising health care costs, this program greatly expanded coverage and access to health care services. The program also reduces the fear that insurances companies will drop coverage as soon as you get sick." not exactly a ringing endorsment nor are the words of those physician groups who did endorse the current reform bill.

dr. stubbs of the american academy of physicians stated :
" [we] should urge the United States to enact the improvements" included in the ‘corrections’ legislation including "increasing the subsidies to making coverage affordable, providing equitable support to all states to cover the cost of expanding Medicaid, eliminating the Medicare Part D doughnut hole, and increasing Medicaid payments for primary care physicians."

but this is just spin i guess, despite the fact that these impacts in mass and predicted impacts for the rest of the nation are impacting more than just the non-voting impact (who, by the way, voted in record number in 2008 and were a vital reason for why obama won the election).

[George Gervin's Afro]

Outside of the actual bill, three days later, yes. Not the way you stated that it was in bill. That is correct. Yes.

in the end stupak got what he wanted... that was my intent..he got what he wanted after he voted for the bill...


Oh I forgot..I was SOOOOOO owned on this..:lmao

[Winehole23]

for an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments and low-income residents, previously eligible for free care, have insurance policies requiring unaffordable copayments for office visits and medications.It would seem the issue of affordability arises, no?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

hTwUlvd6neY

DU91POX33aE

I am fond of this one.

[Winehole23]

Ah, thanks.

[boutons_deux]

"It would seem the issue of affordability arises"

One way to have Real Revolution would be to kill all tax-free employer group plans, have the employers pay their group plan costs as salaries, and make EVERYBODY pay for 100% of their health insurance after-tax.

Right now, individual plans, or even non-employer group plans (through NASE), and upcoming plans through the exchanges, are paid with after-tax income. Very unfair.

[Winehole23]

in the end stupak got what he wanted... that was my intent..he got what he wanted after he voted for the bill...


Oh I forgot..I was SOOOOOO owned on this..:lmao

http://www.streetlegaltv.com/photos/data/500/dr4.jpg


Still heating up your radials? The race is already over.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And this one:

acQqpUf7vzs

I find listening to Ween much more entertaining than the banal bullshit being bandied about.

[Winehole23]

The Pod is a pretty great rock n roll album, period.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The Pod is a pretty great rock n roll album, period.

Yeah its some of the best lo-fi goodness ever created.

They have songs for every occasion. Here's a good song to dedicate to recently ex-girlfriends.

RxMafF6mj1E

[rjv]

It would seem the issue of affordability arises, no?

that was my point. the mass plan has often been quite unaffordable for many middle-class and lower income families.

[Winehole23]

I guess the opposition to this bill was mostly content to presume this, but it's striking to me that affordability hasn't been a bigger theme in this discussion. At least, not here.

[Marcus Bryant]

I guess the opposition to this bill was mostly content to presume this, but it's striking to me that affordability hasn't been a bigger theme in this discussion. At least, not here.

Just a guess, most who have access to the internets and the time to participate in forums such as don't find this matter to be a huge concern personally.

I do think this was built into the bill for a reason, that being to lay the groundwork for a political push to create a public option. Not that such an option would be any less expensive, but the political gold of 'evil insurers' does not go away with this law. That the originators of this bill might experience some blowback themselves such that the public might get changes in the opposite direction might be the reality. Given how American politics operates, the mandate will continue to exist, the private members of the exchange will not face competition from Uncle Sam, subsidies to address the affordability issue will increase, and income tax rates will rise for a much larger segment of the population, assuming that the federal government's major debt holders lose their appetite for holding and continuing to invest in its debt.

[Winehole23]

A public option to bail us out from an increasingly unaffordable mandate? Plausible.

[Marcus Bryant]

Which, in turn, is unaffordable itself without significant tax increases and increased 'cost savings.'

[Winehole23]

"Tighten the belt, pay down the debt."

[Winehole23]

is not anybody's campaign slogan. Yet.

[Marcus Bryant]

And the great standardization/averaging of life for the bottom 80% continues.

[coyotes_geek]

"Tighten the belt, pay down the debt."


is not anybody's campaign slogan. Yet.

That's because "vote for me, I'll give you money" is far more effective.

[Winehole23]

More primal, too.

[Marcus Bryant]

is not anybody's campaign slogan. Yet.

And it will be a while. I'm not sure we'll find the happy fiscal medium of the 90s again. Medicare and SS remain unsustainable. Even if the Congress flips to the GOP totally by 2012, I've seen little to suggest a real appetite will exist to tighten the purse strings. And of course tax increases will be ruled out. And of course we'll still be chasing boogeymen in the War on Terror.

Likely a Obama-GOP Congress pairing would result in continued large spending growth and deficits.

Maybe the economic reality of exploding deficits as borne out in increased borrowing costs, continued high unemployment, and a stagnant or lesser standard of living will force the American public to accept tax increases and spending cuts. Maybe. Those could just as well serve to justify yet more tax cuts and spending increases. Until the world tells us to go fuck ourselves.

[Marcus Bryant]

We've established what we are, now we're just discussing the price.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

And the great standardization/averaging of life for the bottom 80% continues.
that

[Wild Cobra]

And this one:

acQqpUf7vzs

I find listening to Ween much more entertaining than the banal bullshit being bandied about.
I like the undoctored onces better. I used to watch the show.

Oooops... am I dating myself?

AVm-HwAkVp8

y_PZPpWTRTU