Debunking the top 10 conservative myths about health care reform.
Debunking the top 10 conservative myths about health care reform.
Today, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is holding confirmation hearings for former senator Tom Daschle, President-elect Obama’s nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services. In advance of the confirmation, conservatives have been actively filling the nation’s leading newspapers with editorials attacking Daschle and misrepresenting the consequences and implications of expanding access to affordable health care coverage. In a new report released today, the Wonk Room identifies and debunks the right-wing’s most widely-circulated myths about reform:
MYTH: The government will ration care. “The Left’s idea of limiting Medicare spending is to have bureaucrats tell Mom she cannot have the cancer treatment she wants. [Washington Times, 12/28/2008]
REALITY: Progressive proposals will allow Mom and her doctor to choose the best treatment for her cancer. Research into the comparative effectiveness of treatments can identify the procedures that provide the best results at the lowest cost. Currently, at least one-third of medical procedures have questionable benefits, according to the Rand Corporation. [Rand Corporation, 1998]
The Wonk Room will be blogging Daschle’s confirmation hearing that started at 10 am.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Gat ready for the screaming, from the profiteering republic666ans. Remember the movie Sicko where Nixon was heard to say in response to the coming HMO movement that would make money from denying benefits “that sounds good to me”. Just another industry where these scumbags make a killing from killing, expect a lot of propaganda, they dont want their bull gored.
January 8th, 2009 at 10:34 amDamn typo!
“Get” ready, obviously.
January 8th, 2009 at 10:34 amDemocrats need to be watched closely as this unfolds. Max Baucus and Kent Conrad accept beaucoup donations from for-profit hospital companies with no facilities in their states.
Evan Bayh’s wife sits on the Board of WellPoint, she shared the table with George W. Bush’s Uncle Bucky.
Ron Wyden proposed a plan dumping health insurance costs to the employee after a two year transition period.
The Chamber of Commerce wants to race to the lowest global common denominator on taxes, pay and benefits. They’ll throw tons of money and lobbyists (like Trent Lott) at this issue. Pay attention to details folks!
January 8th, 2009 at 10:34 amI know Republicans are mean, but drawing cartoon glasses on the guy is just going too far.
You know, I have employer-based health care. After moving to a new city, my wife needed to go to a doctor – nothing emergency-like, just an ear infection. So we had to go to the insurance provider’s website to try to find “in-network” facilities, and finally located only 3 in the entire city, none of which were at all convenient to get to. In a single-payer system, she could have gone literally anywhere. I’m soooo sick of hearing conservatives blather about “choice of doctors.” Nobody except the richest few in this country have anything resembling “choice of doctors” now. People in single-payer health care countries have the most choice of doctors possible.
January 8th, 2009 at 10:35 amMany doctors appear to have changed sides on these issues since they were last debated. It will be interesting to see the medical profession’s views in contrast with the insurance industry’s and those of its factota!
January 8th, 2009 at 10:44 amJust more fear mongering, brought to you by the experts of fear mongering, der Repuglycan party.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:00 amThe government has a unique ability to drive health care costs down, thus making any program more affordable for the taxpayer. There are, however, several powerful constituencies, many of who tend to vote Democrat, that will likely suffer.
–Doctors: A government program will likely bargain to reduce payments to doctors for all visits and certain types of treatments. Compared to their European counterparts, American doctors are far overpaid.
–Attorneys: To reduce the financial burden on doctors so they don’t quit under a system of lower payments, the government will need to reform tort law to limit malpractice damages and thus lower malpractice insurance costs. Malpractice attorneys (well, those who represent plaintiffs) will object to that.
Top quality health care isn’t cheap. In order to insure everyone without breaking the Treasury, which is under particular strain these days, we’ll have to lower costs overall and thus lower the incomes of those who benefit from the current system (drug companies, equipment manufacturers, hospitals, AND attorneys, AND doctors). Those are some powerful constituencies to face down. Can the new Congress and White House do it?
We shall see.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:14 amYeay! My favorite issue!
January 8th, 2009 at 11:16 amHey, rich people could buy supplemental insurance all they want so doctors can continue to be overpaid – by them.
I mean, the very concept of insurance is, the larger the pool, the greater the savings to each member in the pool. Right? So it stands to reason that the largest possible insurance pool (i.e. the country) would be generate maximum savings.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:21 amSo it stands to reason that the largest possible insurance pool (i.e. the country) would be generate maximum savings.
which is why Big Pharma paid Billy Tauzin so handsomely for sheparding through Congress legislation FORBIDDING the Govt from participating in negotiations over the costs of pharmaceuticals…
January 8th, 2009 at 11:25 ammakes no sense to me that we are still the only industrialized nation without universal hearth care. Those pharm/insurance profits are just to big to give up, i guess.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:25 amThank God for the internet.
It used to be the right-wing talking points were all anyone heard. Now they all get debunked on the net, usually within minutes.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:57 pmLying liars of all stripes are the reason we do not have universal health coverage that doesn’t bankrupt our own citizens, like every other civilized industrial First World nation.
Putzes, every single one.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:31 pmWow, it looks like they are going to use the same arguments they used against Hillary’s health care plan. You remember, you won’t be able to see the doctor you want, you will have your health care rationed. Well, be careful what you wish for because the Health Care Industry made good on those accusations they made against a government run plan.
It’s so bad today that most physicians support a government run health care system whereas when Hillary was trying to construct a government health care plan most physicians were against it.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:34 pmIf a private insurer were to offer even vaguely affordable insurance that a) covered all illnesses, no matter what ‘pre-existing conditions’ you might have, b) you could not get dumped from for any reason other than non-payment of premiums and c) paid for procedures performed and didn’t change their minds and disallow them after they were performed–that company would completely dominate the industry in short order, become a Fortune 100 company rapidly, and eliminate the need for government health care.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:45 pmWhy has nobody jumped on this huge opportunity?
Interesting. Current facts: The conservatives in Congress will decide when a person is brain dead or not just by watching a video. The conservatives in Congress will decide if stem cell research will benefit people with MS or Parkinson’s Disease.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:55 pm2 comments:
1) If anyone believes that health care isn’t already rationed by insurance companies, they’re crazy. Anytime a company defines a payout for contracted services, i.e., procedures that are listed as covered in the insurance agreement, as “losses”, there is a problem.
2) In my mind, the arguments against universal care are pointless. It’s been done, many times. Given that virtually all industrialized countries manage to insure everybody, with better results by merely all measures, and for less, generally significantly less, cost, why is the US so inept? Why can’t we do it as well? (I know, I know, insurance co.’s)
Paul
January 8th, 2009 at 1:57 pmThis morning, one of the pundits on MSNBC said that doctors and the medical profession would be against single payer health care. That’s not true. The medical profession would love to submit one form to receive payment and only need to submit it ONCE. In the current situation, every insurance company has its own forms and it may take several submissions over several months BEFORE the doctor gets paid.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:58 pmGood point! Several times when my daughter visited me (several day visits), either she or her daughter were sick and needed to see a doctor. Just a simple doctor’s office visit would have been fine. My daughter lives in a different state than I do so instead of going to the ER, she went to one of the walk-in Family Care facilities. Her insurance would not pay for this visit because this health facility was not “in network” so she had to pay for the visit out of pocket.
You are correct in stating that the current system already rations care.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:22 pmMyth is the word! Nice job of myth-busting. I bow in your virtual direction (Coriolis correction requested; not responsible for lost or stolen salutations; void wherever you go).
A myth is a metaphor, not a lie: a vessel for going from ignorance to understanding. Historically, they have served humanity in a dual function: as marsupial pouches, second wombs in which to complete our gestation; and burlap sacks, as in “easy as drowning kittens in a burlap sack.”
Myths are used for delivering people into either the Promised Land, or the hands of their butchers, depending on the intentions of the myth-makers. I call the latter, “to myth-jack.”
There are a lot of good articles regarding this method recently.
The most hair-curling of all is this, from Ray McGovern:
January 8th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
pbg Says:
If a private insurer were to offer even vaguely affordable insurance that a) covered all illnesses, no matter what ‘pre-existing conditions’ you might have, b) you could not get dumped from for any reason other than non-payment of premiums and c) paid for procedures performed and didn’t change their minds and disallow them after they were performed–that company would completely dominate the industry in short order, become a Fortune 100 company rapidly, and eliminate the need for government health care.
Why has nobody jumped on this huge opportunity?
Because consumer choice isn’t the primary determinant of insurance chosen. Insurance companies primarly work through employer-provided programs, so it becomes a question not of what consumers want, but what other corporations want in their group coverage, which is mainly a question of affordability for a moderate coverage level. Pre-existing conditions, dumping, chargebacks, doctor choice, and decisional autonomy aren’t factors in that equation.
.
sanschag Says:
Given that virtually all industrialized countries manage to insure everybody, with better results by merely all measures, and for less, generally significantly less, cost, why is the US so inept? Why can’t we do it as well? (I know, I know, insurance co.’s)
Because we still have Republicans. Once they are eliminated, things will improve.
.
Cats r Flyfishn Says:
This morning, one of the pundits on MSNBC said that doctors and the medical profession would be against single payer health care. That’s not true. The medical profession would love to submit one form to receive payment and only need to submit it ONCE. In the current situation, every insurance company has its own forms and it may take several submissions over several months BEFORE the doctor gets paid.
Absolutely. If you run a business, it’s more important to be able to have a consistent and accurate picture of future revenue, rather than roll the dice with each billing. Then you can determine your own success. As it is, a doctor has to deal with multiple agencies that have muliply different policies, and often won’t know how much they’ll get paid (or whether) until weeks after submitting an invoice. That’s no way to run a business, even if occasionally you hit the jackpot on a procedure.
Furthermore, having to gear your care towards higher-paying procedures in order to stay in business is no way to actually treat health conditions.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:40 pmMYTH: The draft makes people serve in a military they do not want to serve.
FACT: The Selective Service allows people to serve in any branch of the military they wish.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:41 pmFor the record, U.S. healthcare is already rationed. If you have a lot of money, you get a lot of health care. If you don’t have any money, you don’t get healthcare except in emergencies–and, maybe, not then. If you have a medium amount of money, you get a medium amount of health care. That is rationing. It is done today, right now.
January 8th, 2009 at 6:32 pmSilly Daschle, government doesn’t ration care, the market does. Mom can’t get her cancer treatment because she has to wait in line. The reason. Not enough doctors to take care of all the patients “free care” produces. Whether we like it or not, “free care” is a dismal failure evrywhere it is tried, even here, sanschag and ElBruce’s propaganda aside. Just ask granny how she likes medicare. If everyone here wants “free care” I’m good with that, just don’t take away my ability to buy my own health care insurance. A national plan would MAKE me stop paying for my own healthcare.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:11 am