We've spent a lot of time responding to the myths about health reform legislation -- in part because they're so pervasive in the public realm, and in part because they're continually repeated by the opposition in their effort to kill reform.

Our health policy analysts Lynn Quincy and Steve Findlay address some of the biggest myths over at Health Affairs blog, including the oft-repeated claims that reform will destroy Medicare, will bust our budget, and should be slowed-down and done in small bits.

Below are their fact-based responses to those myths, and make sure to read their responses to the entire list here, including other false claims that reform is a government-takeover of health care and doesn't address rising health costs.

It will destroy Medicare.This is a distorted and disingenuous allegation. The legislation seeks to reduce Medicare spending by roughly $500 billion over the next decade, compared to current projections. But Medicare spending is not “cut” at all. If the Senate bill becomes law, Medicare spending will still rise from an estimated $517 billion in 2010 to $896 billion in 2019, according to the forecasters at CMS. That’s about 10 percent less than would happen if the Senate bill does not become law. Almost all that 10 percent comes out of inefficient programs (such as Medicare Advantage). The legislation also puts the federal government in the lead of reforming a health system where at least 20 percent (the estimates go up to 30 percent) of expenditures are wasted on inefficient or wasteful medical services. In addition, the legislation strengthens Medicare in many ways: adding new preventive care benefits, reducing the size of (and perhaps elim! inating) the Part D drug benefit doughnut hole, and, according to both the CBO and the CMS actuaries, lengthening by almost ten years the time before the Medicare Hospital Trust Fund dips into the red.

It spends $1 trillion we don’t have and will bust the budget. The trillion-dollar expense has been cited out of context for the entire year of debate. Bear this in mind: as a nation, we’ll spend a projected $35 trillion on health care from 2010 through 2019 without health reform. If we were really adding a trillion more dollars in that ten-year period, that would add 3 percent to the $35 trillion. However, the respected number crunchers at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Office of the Actuary estimated in January that the legislation would actually increase national health spending over the next decade by just 0.6 percent because it reduces wasteful spending, mostly in Medicare. Also, 90 percent of that $1 trillion in new spending is allocated to helping people buy coverage: expanding Medicaid and tax subsidies to help ! families buy private health insurance. What’s more, this new spending is paid for and, according to the Congressional Budget Office does not add to the federal deficit.

Incremental would be better. And let’s slow down, too.Twenty-five years of incrementalism has not solved our core problems—in fact, they’ve gotten worse during that time. In addition to both the rising number of uninsured and soaring costs, the delivery of care today is more fragmented than a decade ago, with little or no reduction in the risk of harm to patients from poor quality and service. That said, some incrementalism is appropriate, and we believe this legislation includes it. For example, we think it’s a good idea to proceed deliberatively and incrementally, and based on evidence, when it comes to changing the way doctors and hospitals get paid, in order to insure against disruptions. But incrementalism that expands coverage to three million people over the next decade is pointless; it’s not incrementalism, it’s token reform.

There is also one argument we find particularly compelling: virtually every major federal health care program that has been enacted over the last fifty years—from Medicare and Medicaid to COBRA, SCHIP, and the Medicare Part D drug benefit—has improved the health, financial security, and well-being of the U.S. population and, ultimately, has been embraced and supported by the public.

Many of these programs were politically contentious and took years to enact. But today, few people outside Washington and health policy circles remember or care about the political blood on the floor, how many pages the bill was, or the final vote tally. All they know is that they gained new options and benefits. In the end, it’s not about the political process; it’s about programs and policies that make people’s lives better.

comments (9)

Comments

1 Posted by Chris at 03/17/10 01:07 PM

I'm on board that our current health care system does not work and something needs to be done. From everything I've read this new plan may even help. My problem is how they plan on paying for it. They are going to tax healthcare plans so healthcare WILL cost more for those who currently have it. But not for everyone who has it. Union members and Government workers will not have to pay tax on their healthcare plans. So those with the best benefit plans won't have to pay.

The fact that a bill excluding government workers from a tax made it this far is a crime against the American people. It is bad enough that Government workers make more than their privately employed counter parts and they have better benefits but now they want them to pay less tax too. This is outrageous. I can't believe there isn't more outcry against this.

2 Posted by Madalyn at 03/19/10 10:37 PM

Have you folks heard about how well socialized medicine works in Canada. Have you heard about the lotteries they hold every three months in some towns to select the lucky families that can finally see a general practictioner? Or the 6-9 month waits for MRIs and other life saving diagnostic tests? Or the Canadian citizens who come south to the US for life-saving treatment unavailable in their own country? Mr. Obama says this health care bill doesn't transform our system overnight. He also is on record saying that the Canadian system wasn't built in a day. Clearly that is his goal. I'm just trying to figure out what flavor Kool-Aid you are drinking.

3 Posted by Ken at 03/21/10 08:28 PM

I sell Insurance and have for quite a few years and for those of you who are comfortable with our current system and trust these Health Insurers like UHC,Aetna etc..you need to wake up because you are simply a illness away from being cancelled or being denied coverage should you lose job.
This bill does not solve all the problems but it is a start in the right direction and as far as cost is concerned,I would think some programs like re-building Iraq would be cut in order to provide for the care of American taxpayers here at home.
This Country needs to take care of matters at home first.

4 Posted by Rick Dana at 03/22/10 04:37 PM

Why did my doctor bill for a regular visit go up 100% in the last 5 years? I'm not talking insurance costs just a visit to the Dr. When we add 35 Million more people to health insurance does this mean that they will all go to the doctor? Oh by the way my Doctor just quit. Said it wasn't worth it any more. Very good Doctor, too. Now I can't find a new one because they won't take Tricare (Military Retiremnet Insurance) because the reimbursement to the Doctor is going down 20%. Now if Nancy and Barack can get the Doc bill passed then I will be in a better position. Oh another thing if they do that then the savings on this bill will drop to almost nothing. It was not figured in by the CBO.

5 Posted by joe at 03/22/10 07:10 PM

this health care bill is a sham it is a step towards socialism the taxes are going to burden our children and grandchildren dont forget the irs is involved if you dont get in they penalize you small businesses get more jobs generated in this country than the large corporations you can forget about pay raises and more jobs with this bill forced down our throats some businesses will freeze wages or even reduce them i thought this was a free country i dont think so btw i will cancel my subscription to consumer reports !!

6 Posted by Mark at 03/22/10 07:40 PM

Why does this organization assume that since someone is concerned about their health care that they are in favor of this stinker of a bill? I think this is one of the worst things that has ever happened in this country. 'It's great like _________ (social security - bankrupt, medicare - bankrupt)" And Medicare part D was a Bush program that I seem to remember the Dems telling us all how terrible it was. The efficiency of the DMV and the personality of the IRS, I just can't wait!

7 Posted by Bibi at 03/23/10 10:03 AM

Well I'll tell you something Madalyn: Family practices all over the US are having to close their practices to new patients, and fewer and fewer medical school graduates are choosing family practice as their specialty. Why? Because the insurance companies compensation is ridiculous! Look at the EOB you get from your insurance company next time you go for a check up -- I'll bet they discount the doctor's fee by almost 1/2. So don't be so quick to discount the lottery system in Canada -- if things don't change here, we'll have worse. Believe me, if we didn't care so deeply about our patients, there are at least two insurance companies that we would kick out of our practice. W

8 Posted by Bibi at 03/23/10 10:05 AM

And, anyway, Madalyn, what Congress has passed is NOT socialized medicine! President Obama said ONCE that if we were starting over, he might support a single-payer health system. His ACTIONS speak louder than those words.

9 Posted by Douglas D Spencer at 03/26/10 02:50 PM

Name me one thing the goverment dose other than military that works and comes in even close to budget. I'm all for change but there must be a better way.