Factually incorrect claims about the bill

You may have seen an email circulating that would make good fodder for Snopes.com, but the fact checkers over there haven't gotten to this one yet. It looks like it "must be true" because it cites page numbers for its claims. I guess they thought no one would actually check. But quite a few people are checking, and the fabrications stack pretty high. So high, in fact, that we've only debunked the claims we know matter a lot to you. Here's our analysis (based on the Energy and Commerce bill of July 14th).

For an additional fact checkers' take, PolitiFact (a project of the St. Petersburg Times) did a very good review. The folks over at Health Care for All have responded to every single point, so check here if you want to learn their response to a particular item not listed here. Or please, take a look at the bill for yourself.

Here's an AARP overview. Consumer Reports has already debunked the widely circulated myth that health reform will mandate counseling for seniors about "how to end their life sooner." So on to the other misleading or actually false statements.

• Page 42: The 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
Well, that's not true at all. It appears that, on page 42, the bill says that the Health Choices Commissioner will review and approve health plans to make sure they meet some new standards. They can't be "junk insurance" (something Consumer Reports has discussed extensively); they don't exclude people with pre-existing conditions; and they have a way for you to fight for your benefits if the insurance company denies your claim. Does that mean someone is deciding your benefits? No. Does it mean that there's a minimum standard beneath which insurance companies cannot go? Yes.

• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed! False. As noted above, the bill makes insurance companies sell you plans that will actually benefit you when you get sick. Within these basic rules, there will be lots of different plans available from which to choose. The bill has no provisions that would ration or limit treatment. Quite the contrary. It holds all insurance companies, which, as you probably know, already ration your care and deny you benefits based on fine print exclusions, to a higher standard.

• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process). Wow, this one is a whopper. The bill does (on page 30) create a Health Benefits Advisory Committee to finalize the minimum and enhanced benefit plans, but the Committee is not deciding what treatments you will get. The bill is very clear (starting on page 27) that everyone will get hospitalization, outpatient hospital and clinic services, emergency services, doctor and specialist services at home and in offices or hospitals, prescription drugs, rehab services, preventive services, maternity and well baby care, and dental and vision for children. Today, your health insurance plan does not have to provide these basic services, and you may find after you purchase it that your needs are not met. That's the kind of rationing the bill will eliminate.

• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services. False. Just like now, anyone will be able to purchase health insurance from private insurance companies, but insurance companies won't be able to deny people based on their age, where they live, their credit record or any other "personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." If you are undocumented, you will not be eligible for the discounts that will help millions of others purchase insurance at affordable rates. Here's the exact language. "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." Its on page 143.

• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange. Finally, something on the list is true! This is one of the key reforms. If insurance companies get to keep doing what they've been doing, we don't actually solve any of the problems that today lead people to ration their own care (not go to doctors, avoid preventive visits, cut pills in half and more) or drive them into bankruptcy.

• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan. Back to falsehoods. The Health Choices Commissioner must publicize all the options in the health care exchange and may privatize some of this public education by working with "other appropriate entities to facilitate the dissemination of information." The mental leap to ACORN or Americorps is entirely in the imagination of the writer of these falsehoods. We fully expect this will work much as Medicare Advantage does now. Medicare itself provides information, but so do networks of insurance agents, nonprofit policy groups and many others.

• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter. Yikes, this is completely untrue. If you qualify for Medicaid, you will be automatically enrolled only if you have "not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan." That means people who do qualify for Medicaid (and therefore will also qualify for significant discounts on the cost of private coverage) will end up in Medicaid only if they choose that option. In general, we find that any claim that you will lose choices should be viewed skeptically. Opponents know that loss of choice is a major concern for families, and the authors of this bill know that too. The bill is designed to increase and improve your choices, not limit them.

• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed. This one takes some mental gymnastics to get from the rate setting process to the crushing of private insurance companies, but it is in a small part true. Doctors won't be able to sue for higher fees from the public plan--although the fees seem to be set plenty high enough. The bill says doctors who currently participate in Medicare (most doctors do so) will automatically be able to get payments from the public plan option, and they will get paid more. That's just common sense. The public plan will only serve you well if your doctor will accept payment from it. And Medicare is the highly contested "floor" for what many doctors deem the minimum acceptable rate. The public plan will actually pay more than that, to ensure full participation. To encourage better care for the dollar, the plan may also create some payment incentives to encourage preventive care and improved management of chronic diseases like diabetes. Why private insurance companies will be crushed under this scenario, when they can do all these same things in a presumably more efficient and business like way eludes us. One clarification, discounts available under the proposal will apply to private and public plans alike to make sure there's a level playing field on price--the key factor for many families. We've blogged on this larger argument here.

There's a LOT more of this stuff, but I think this gives you an idea of its veracity. We want to follow up on any claims you've heard that still bother you, so please add your comments. If you want to know what something means on a particular page, or how a particular section might affect your coverage, take a moment to ask your question. We'll be keeping an eye here and try to respond, but we want to make sure our response is perfectly accurate so if you don't see a response right away, check back later. We will respond to similar questions only once.

comments (31)

Comments

1 Posted by Steve at 08/18/09 03:02 PM

I do not want the Federal Government or any government involved with my healthcare, period. Tell me Ms. Mitchell one thing that that the government has done correctly and efficiently. Social Security was stolen by the Democrat Party, Medicare and Medicaid are in trouble because of the government stealing those funds for other purposes. Those fools in DC can't even get the Clunker program right and now they want to run healthcare for 300 million people. Wake Up!

2 Posted by Frank Deutsch at 08/18/09 04:37 PM

Please STAY OUT of HEALTH CARE. Design a plan for the UNINSURED. If the US wants Health care
then everyone from the President to every Congress and every Senator SHOULD have the same health plan. AS you know this would be fair. NOT JUST THE TAX PAYERS.....
I DO NOT WANT GOVT HEALTH CARE. You cannot take money from Medicare which is cutting service and use that money for something we cannot afford.

3 Posted by Michael McCranie at 08/18/09 08:37 PM

I think this debate is between the pure capitalists and those that see a blend as being fair. The Republicans are pure capitalists and see health care as an individual responsibility. I heard a well-known radio host say that everyone should create a health care savings account for that heart attack you may have in the future.

So, in their eyes you're on your own, or to put is simply, as long as they don't have to pay for it. The same is true for the insurance companies.

You're on your own or fairness, that's the question. Which one would the average working American want?

4 Posted by Jack Bonner at 08/19/09 08:31 AM

I have read a couple hundred pages. There are specific provisions for the Govt "review and allocation" of application of resources in times of shortage. Right now money is in short supply. Translation? All health care is subject to review and allocation. There is NO GOVT program not under stress. The Govt is one of the causes of health care problems, not the solution! I sure don't want another civil servant deciding what my family can or cannot receive from health care.
If the Govt wants to clean up the health care mess, start by getting big pharma out of the FDA. Prohibit big corporations from "contributing" and "lobbying". Remove congressmen who claim it is unnecessary to read the bill before voting. Almost everything Govt program is broke, disfunctional or rife with waste. That is not what I want for a critical life service.

5 Posted by Mark McKennon at 08/27/09 11:18 AM

The naysayers for a public option or government involvement in health care are woefully misinformed. Do they even read the pros and cons ofthis issue and weigh them objectively, or just throw up their hands at its complexity and swallow the sound-bite swill propagated by the Republican't CEOs and their cronies? They much prefer that millions of citizens do without (while they of course are covered under government-provided or -subsidized plans) and *suffer* so that private insurance can reap benefits and grant performance bonuses based on how many millions were saved by denying care or treatment. WAKE UP! If you believe the government will dictate your health care and ration treatment, then you have been duped by propaganda and blinded by untruths -- the insurance companies ALREADY DICTATE HEALTH CARE AND RATION TREATMENT WHEN THEY DENY CLAIMS -- REFUSE TO COVER COSTS -- FORCE HIGHER OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS/DEDUCTIBLES -- CANCEL POLICIES OR REFUSE TO COVER YOU/YOUR FAMILY AFTER A JOB LOSS OR AN EXPENSIVE ILLNESS ! If you have ever been denied care or forced into debt by treatment that you thought your policy covered -- and that you paid for through monthly premiums -- then through health care reform AND a public option THIS WILL END!

6 Posted by Ethan B. Ellis at 08/27/09 11:58 AM

The other night I went to Congressman Frank Pallone’s (D-NJ) town hall meeting on health care reform in the Piscataway Municipal Building. Pallone is my congressman; Piscataway is my town, where Janet and I are raising our three-year old son.

The meeting was at 7. When I got there at 6:15, people were lined up for two blocks and the parking lots were full. There was a space reserved for people with disabilities, hidden behind the police department. I took it and began the long trek to the end of the line.

It was tough going because Janet had our van so I had to use my walker. As I inched past the people in the front of the line, one man pushing another in a wheelchair offered to let me in front of him. No one else objected so I slid in gratefully.

The crowd was noisy. People opposing reform argued with those in favor all along the line, now four blocks long. Half the crowd was carrying signs and organizers from both sides were racing up and down, handing out leaflets to anybody who would take them. It got even more heated when the doors opened and the meeting began. The anti-reformers spouted the misinformation their lobbyists had fed them and the pro-reformers answered with their talking points. Each salvo brought a cacophony of cheers and jeers from both sides, in a shouting match that covered neither with glory.

Pallone, unruffled and cool, managed to turn the provocative questions and comments into opportunities to provide real, substantive information about H.R. 3200, the bill he supports and the alternatives being considered in the Senate. Despite the din, I learned more in an hour than I had in months of sorting through news and opinion on TV and online. I even got in a question that filled in some of the blanks.

Here’s how H.R. 3200 will affect people with disabilities:
• Every health insurance company must offer a plan that covers everyone’s basic 4246needs.
• All the plans are in one place so you can compare what each offers and costs.
• No plan can refuse to cover anyone with a pre-existing condition or charge more if they have one.
• It provides a subsidy of up to 80% for people who can’t afford to pay the full cost.
• It increases the amount of money doctors will be paid for treating people on Medicaid and Medicare so more doctors will take them.
• It maintains the same eligibility for Medicaid and Medicare so no one will lose those benefits.

Here’s what that means in a nutshell.

If you have a disability and get a job, you can get health insurance you can afford. You can work as many hours and earn as much as you can and not worry about losing your Medicaid or Medicare because you won’t need it. The government will pay up to four-fifths of your private insurance bill if you can’t afford the whole amount. The insurance company you choose can never drop you or charge you more because of your disability or any illness.

If you don’t think you can work, you can stay on SSI or SSDI and get Medicare and/or Medicaid. The only difference will be that doctors will be paid more for treating you so it will be easier to find one who will.

Here’s how it benefits the disability community and the country as a whole. There are twelve million people with disabilities on SSI or SSDI who get Medicare and/or Medicaid. Surveys show that more than 90% of them want to work. Many of them are not looking for work or are only working part-time because they can’t get private insurance and can’t risk losing their Medicaid/Medicare by earning too much – the maximum is $940 a month and $11,280 a year.

Not all 12 million will find jobs – discrimination is still alive and well in this country. But several million can and will and the more that do, the less discrimination the rest of us will face in finding work and becoming independent.

And the more people with disabilities become independent, the more will bring their resources to the struggle to live with pride as equals in this country. That’s reason enough to unite with others across the nation to pass H.R. 3200.

7 Posted by Lor at 08/27/09 01:27 PM

Much needed analysis.

8 Posted by Ed Morgan at 08/27/09 01:38 PM

Consumers Union is cherry picking the duds they choose to debunk. Here's some they chose to skip over. Between 12-20 million illegal aliens will be allowed to receive free medical coverage. Your tax dollars will be used to subsidize abortion. There will be rationing simply because adding 40 million new people will overwhelm the system. Your medicare will be reduced because hundreds of billions will be redirected to pay for all new recipients.

Consumers Union is doing what the AARP is doing; suckering you.

9 Posted by jbuncfh at 08/27/09 01:58 PM

This bill is an open ended book in process.
When you say illegals will not be covered the bill simply put does not state that....the finally drafting might. And this is why so may people are upset with all of it. The bill needs to be simplified, more specific, and not a public program. It can be a good thing but not as it is.

10 Posted by jalbert at 08/27/09 06:50 PM

Anyone who believes that the government can run a health care system efficiently and economically is living in a fantasy world!
The "public option" is lunacy and will cost the taxpayers dearly!

11 Posted by jim little at 08/28/09 12:20 AM

There something like 40 million who have no contracted coverage!

But for emergencies the go to the emergency room which is required to serve them... And at a huge premium over preventive or scheduled care. Guess who is paying for this?

Us of course.

Our family is covered by a very large system which covers everything. Modest five bucks to see a doctor. Co-pay on medications, and a mail/phone order refill is discounted two bucks.

Would we switch plans? faintly possible but we can easily continue with present one. And it has been operating for somewhat over sixty years.

Personally I used no hospital from 1953 until last year. But have regularly had checkups which the uninsured would never get.

Can we afford to let a significant portion of our nation rot their teeth out, get care for hidden diseases or injuries?

I think not!!!

Every ones good health protects the whole population.

12 Posted by Charles Wheeland at 08/28/09 05:56 PM

It seems to me that too many people are forgetting just who the government is. It starts out as We The People. The government is us. The duly elected and their hirelings work for us. Pogo was correct--We have met the enemy, and they are us. The Constitution has already been abused, and we let it. In the last seven months , many things that are blatantly socialist have happened, and if 'government health care ' is passed, we might just as well give up. Individuals taking care of themselves are what made the country what is it today, not the government

13 Posted by joda at 08/29/09 10:22 PM

well if you want the uncle sam in the picture who do you want to pertect you right we are pay almost 400.oo a month for insurance and we have 1000.oo dectutable a year how does that help may as well not have it at all the companys are not going to stop uping the rates and they every trick in the book not to cover anything

14 Posted by Joann at 09/02/09 09:05 PM

I had no idea. I may never read Consumer Reports again, because I will no longer believe anything printed. It started with the first page email "lawmakers saw real support for health reform in their home districts in August". Are you kidding me? Did you go to one? Only supporters at these things were bussed in and told to make noise? I guess those clueless lawmakers will find out how much support it has come next election. Hate to be them. Second, all the twisted facts in the fact finder article. Yes, many of us can read it for ourselves. Very scary.

15 Posted by Joann at 09/03/09 10:02 AM

Should have figured this out "Union" (Consumer Union) would support this. It is the job of Consumer Report to report facts and compare and let the consumer decide. I see no comparison with the Republican proposal by Sen. Price, outlining tort reform, state to state insurance, which also includes coverage for pre-existing, and coverage if you change jobs. Why don't we see this? I predict Consumer Report will be dropping readership like a sinking ship - about now. American Spirit Lives.

16 Posted by Bill at 09/12/09 02:47 AM

The primary objection to all of these proposals is I DON'T THINK ANYONE ESPECIALLY THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE THEIR HOMEWORK ON THE REAL ISSUES. THAT IS: RIGHT NOW FOR EVERY DOLLAR WE SPEND FOR HEALTH CARE INCLUDING INSURANCE WHAT PERCENTAGE GOES TO WHERE? THAT IS DOCTORS, DRUG COMPANIES, HOSPITALS, HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES, LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANIES, MEDICAL TESTING, AND SO ON. IT IS EASY TO SAY WE ARE GOING TO FIX THINGS AND THEN LET THE POLITICIANS ARGUE OVER THE COSTS OF DOING SO. BUT THE REAL QUESTION ON ALL OF THESE ISSUES IS WHY IS HEALTH CARE COSTING SO MUCH TO BEGIN WITH? I HAVE SEEN ATTEMPTS TO DO WHAT I HAVE SUGGESTED HOWEVER THEY DON'T GO FAR ENOUGH IN THEIR ANALYSIS. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ENOUGH ANALYSIS AND THE TIME REQUIRED TO DO SO HAS PASSED SINCE THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS TAKEN OVER. WHAT I AM SUGGESTING IS NOT AN EASY TASK BUT LET'S FACE IT EITHER WE DO THIS THING RIGHT OR WE ARE GOING TO CREATE SUCH A MONSTER WE WILL NEVER GET IT CONTAINED. I AGREE WE NEED CHANGE BUT LET'S DO IT IN AN ANALYTICAL FASHION AND NOT REACT TO EMOTIONAL APPEALS FROM EITHER SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT. BY ANALYSIS OF THIS INFORMATION WE WILL BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY WHY THESE COSTS HAVE GONE UP MUCH FASTER THAN OUR INCOMES. FOR EXAMPLE, AND I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS TRUE, BUT WHAT IF WE FIND THE DRUG COMPANIES ARE PLACING A SIGNIFICANT SURCHARE IN THEIR PRICES FOR THEIR DRUGS, ESPECIALLY NEW DRUGS, NOT BECAUES OF THE COST OF THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE DRUGS BUT BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT SOONER OR LATER THEY WILL BE SUED BY LAW FIRMS FILING CLASS ACTION SUITS COSTIMG MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS MAKE THE ATTORNEYS RICH BEYOUND THEIR WILDEST DREAMS? THEN IF TRUE, WE COULD PUT A CAP ON THE LAW SUITS SO THE DRUG COMPANY CAN CHARGE LESS FOR THE SAME DRUG. THIS IS ONLY ONE EXAMPLE OF THE KIND OF ANALYSIS NEED TO REALLY MAKE CHANGES THAT WOULD DROP THE COST OF HEALTH CARE AND MAKE IT MORE ATTAINABLE FOR EVERYONE.

17 Posted by Ben at 10/05/09 11:08 AM

CR cluelessly repeats mantras like "Employers will..." without realizing that the "will" costs money, and the pot is close to empty.

CR, Joe may well see his insurance coverage improve because the government orders his company to do it, but he will not see his next raise when that same company has to pay for it. And when his taxes go up to pay for all the brand new enrollees, Joe will see his lifestyle decline.

In NYC, in the Bronx, at the corner of Lincoln and 138th, there is the busiest bus stop in the South Bronx. The Bicycle Lane runs right through it. Somewhere, in some government tally of how many miles of Bike Paths we have, this stretch is included, regardless of the fact that this Bike Path is essentially non-survivable.

I fully expect the government to manage health care with equal competence and accountability. People will die, and bureacrats will see forms correctly filled out and label it as success.

18 Posted by Marquis at 10/13/09 05:37 PM

I want free food at the grocery store. I want free transportation. I want free college for my children. I want a free vacation. I want free health insurance. Please give it to me.

19 Posted by Dane Weeks at 10/13/09 07:07 PM

I wish CR would stick to Lawn Mowers and House Paint.
Stay out of promoting more big Gov't on health and energy issues etc.

Live Free!

20 Posted by Herb Friedberg at 12/24/09 10:20 PM

Two thousand pages of a bill is hard for anyone to digest, and I doubt if any Congressman read more than a fraction of the law; I wouldn't be surprised if many didn't read a single page. And the rules -- sometimes quoted to make a point by those either for or against the bill -- are so poorly worded that those sitting in Washington, who may be responsible for interpreting those rules, will be making decisions concerning your health care and what is acceptable medical treatment for your condition.

But what really bothers me about the whole procedure in the recent passing of the Senate's version of the law is that the leadership had to buy the votes (with taxpayer money) to get the required number to prevent a filibuster. Is this what is known as representative government? Is there any doubt we have the best Congressmen that money can buy?