Think Progress

Barrasso politicizes breast cancer: The Preventive Services Task Force would pull the plug on my wife.

Yesterday, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), a breast cancer survivor, accused Republicans of politicizing breast cancer. This afternoon, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) — a doctor who runs a private orthopedic practice and serves as Chief of Staff of the Wyoming Medical Center — proved her point. Barrasso called Fox News to register his opposition to the Senate health care bill and argue that the new mammogram guidelines would have pulled the plug on his wife:

And we just saw this past week the first step in rationing of health care in the country with this panel that they have, this preventive panel. A government panel that says women between 40 and 50 shouldn’t have mammograms. You know, my wife Bobbi is a breast cancer survivor. She was diagnosed by a mammogram, went for an operation, the cancer had already spread. The mammogram has saved her life, but yet this preventive panel that the bill says, this health care bill says, ‘oh no, they’re the ones who get to decide what preventive measures are paid for or not.’ That panel would have not allowed her to have this care.

Watch it:

Rather than mandating “what preventive measures are paid for or not,” the task force issues recommendations that help doctors decide on a course of treatment. Providers can use the recommendations as a starting point to examine a patient’s particular needs, but the task force has no authority over coverage or treatment decisions. Barrasso’s wife Bobbi Brown would have received a mammogram regardless of any recommendation. Wyoming, along with 48 other states, requires insurers to cover mammograms and if the Senate bill were to become law all insurers would be required to pay for the procedure. The Wonk Room has more.

Doocy’s fuzzy math: Senate health bill costs ‘close to a trillion dollars.’

Last night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) released the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, legislation which merged the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee’s bill with the Finance Committee’s bill. According to preliminary analysis from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the joint legislation will cost $848 billion over 10 years and reduce the deficit by $130 billion over 10 years. This morning on Fox & Friends, host Steve Doocy added the gross total cost of the coverage provisions to the amount by which the bill would reduce the federal budget deficit ($130 billion, but Doocy used an earlier estimate of $127 billion) to argue that the bill would cost taxpayers “close to a trillion dollars.” Watch it:

While expanding coverage to 31 million Americans would cost $848 billion over 10 years, the cost of these coverage expansions would be more than offset by a combination of new revenue and spending changes. After the $848 billion is paid off, the bill invests the remainder — $130 billion — into deficit reduction. Doocy is double-counting the cost of the bill to taxpayers. Imagine the following scenario: you drive to the supermarket and purchase a gallon of $10 laundry detergent with a $20 bill. According to Doocy’s logic, the cost of your detergent is not $10, but rather $30!

Goldman Sachs report concludes insurers would profit from watered-down Senate health bill.

The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports that Goldman Sachs (in the course of performing “God’s work“) did a report analyzing the impact of health reform on Cigna, Aetna, WellPoint, UnitedHealth and Humana. While Stein concludes that insurers would profit from undermining health care reform, the report also points out that a more “centrist” version of the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) legislation would lead to the highest “aggregate revenue growth” for the insurance industry:

Should lawmakers further water-down the SFC bill, the industry will stand to profit, the report implies, suggesting that the “bull” case scenario is a reform package that brings in millions of new government-subsidized customers without requiring the industry to pay any new taxes. Industry revenue would grow 6.9% from “more moderation of provisions in the current SFC plan or as a result of changes prior to the major implementation in 2013,” the report states. The report therefore suggests that the insurance industry may actually prefer watered-down reform over nothing. The Wonk Room has more. (Chart courtesy of FDL)

Fred Hiatt employs fuzzy math to claim House health bill would bring ‘America a step closer to bankruptcy.’

In this morning’s Washington Post, editorial page editor Fred Hiatt argues that the House health care bill “could take America a step closer to bankruptcy” and harm “the poor and vulnerable.” But since the CBO’s analysis of the House health care bill doesn’t support Hiatt’s contention that it would bring America to the brink of bankruptcy, Hiatt relies on the CBO’s analysis of the President’s entire budget and implies that it’s Obama’s health “plan”:

The root difficulty is Obama’s insistence that the nation can afford a large new social program without raising taxes on anyone who earns less than $250,000 per year. Under his plan, according to a CBO analysis, the government will be spending 24.5 percent of gross domestic product — the total value of the national economy — by 2019 while raising only 19 percent in revenue: a huge, unsustainable gap.

The 24.5% of GDP isn’t a measure of government spending as a result of the House/Obama health care bill. It’s a measure of the outlays of all of the President’s policies in his 2010 budget in 2019 and does not capture the deficit-reducing effects of health care reform or the House bill. The Wonk Room has more.

Rep. Foxx: ‘All of us want all Americans to have health insurance and access to good health care.’

During this afternoon’s Rules Committee hearing to determine which amendments would be introduced during floor debate of the House health care bill, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) announced that everyone can agree that Republicans want “all Americans to have affordable health insurance and good quality health care”:

FOXX: I think we should start with the premise that I have felt all along, despite being questioned on this by my colleagues, that all of us want all Americans to have health insurance and access to good health care. Again, despite accusations made against me, I think we would be all better off if we accepted that assumption. We want to go about it in different ways. But I think accusing each other of things that aren’t true isn’t a good way to start out this meeting. And so I want to say I believe everybody wants all Americans to have affordable health insurance and good quality health care. I just take that assumption.

Watch it:

But Americans shouldn’t “just take that assumption.” In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, under the Republican alternative, the number of uninsured Americans would increase to 52 million by 2019. The plan would provide coverage to only 3 million more uninsured Americans. Earlier in the hearing, Foxx suggested that it’s better to be uninsured than enrolled in the government’s Medicaid program. “I want to ask you if you know that Medicaid patients visit the emergency room at twice the rate of uninsured patients in this country,” she said. “More government paid insurance is going to increase the number of people going to the emergency rooms.”

GOP health bill: Insurers can ignore ‘all of the consumer protection laws’ and ‘restrictions on rate changes.’

The new GOP health care plan expands “coverage” and “choice” by permitting health insurers to sell policies across state lines. Under the Republican proposal, the insurer can choose a ‘primary state’ “whose covered laws shall govern the health insurance issuer” and can change states “upon renewal of the policy.” Page 129 requires a “health insurance issuer” to “provide the following notice” informing consumers in so-called ’secondary states’ that the policy is “not subject to all of the consumer protection laws or restrictions on rate changes of the state.” Here is the notice, as it is described in the legislation:

The GOP is conceding the progressive argument. Specifically, it is admitting that insurance companies would have little incentive to continue doing business under certain state rules which “require that companies issue coverage to all new customers and not set higher rates for people who are already sick.” Instead, companies could chose a state with scarce regulations and sell policies that don’t provide mental health parity, cancer screenings, or abide by regulations that limit the rates that can be charged to higher-cost consumers. This way, plans can attract the healthiest applicants and detract the sick.

Former McCain adviser nervous about moving into the individual health insurance market he once touted.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior policy adviser to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) presidential campaign, “remains unemployed — and his COBRA health coverage is running out,” the Washington Post reports. “Irony of ironies, it gets worse. Holtz-Eakin, who is about to start shopping for insurance on the individual market, is 51. And he has one of those pesky ‘preexisting conditions’ that insurance companies often cite in denying coverage”:

Holtz-Eakin said he’s been paying about $1,000 a month to extend the private health insurance he received on McCain’s campaign through the government’s COBRA program, but that will expire in a few months. This is the first time in his life he has not had employer-provided health coverage. “I worry about where I go next in the way many Americans do,” he said.

During the campaign, Holtiz-Eakin fervently defended McCain’s proposal to shift more Americans out of their employer-sponsored coverage and into the individual health insurance market. “The key to real reform is to restore control over our health-care system to the patients themselves,” Holtz-Eakin said in August. “Instead of only getting it in the employer market, you would get it regardless of your source of insurance. And you get the same amount whether you’re rich or poor, $5,000 for every working family.”

Republicans tout discredited insurance industry study.

Several Republicans have embraced the discredited insurance industry-funded study which claims premiums would increase dramatically under the Senate Finance Committee’s health bill. While careful to avoid mentioning the study’s connection to the insurance industry, Republicans cite the study’s claim that premiums will increase by $4,000 and disingenuously argue that the Congressional Budget Office agrees with the insurance industry’s conclusions. Watch it:

The industry’s very selective analysis undermines its conclusions and exposes the study as an industry attempt to protect the bottom line. An actual analysis of Congressional Budget Office data has concluded that premiums in the exchange would be lower than they are in the none group market today. The Wonk Room has more.

Media mischaracterizes Cantwell’s Basic Health Plan amendment as ‘quasi public option.’

Several news reports are mischaracterizing Sen. Maria Cantwell’s (D-WA) ‘Basic Health Plan’ amendment — which would allow states to provide coverage to people with incomes between 133% and 200% of the federal poverty line (about 75% of the uninsured) — as a “quasi public option”:

– “…Finance Committee passed a quasi, state-based public option sponsored by Sen. Maria Cantwell…” [Politico, 10/1/2009]

– “…the committee voted in favor of a proposal by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) to enable states to form their own public options.” [The Hill, 10/1/2009]

– “The Senate Finance Committee narrowly passed an amendment Thursday from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) that moves the conservative panel as close as it will likely get to a public health insurance option.” [Huffington Post, 10/1/2009]

Under Cantwell’s proposal, states would use their purchasing power to negotiate for more affordable coverage options, improve efficiencies, and even lower the health care costs within the Exchange (by shifting lower income and disproportionately sicker individuals into the Basic Health Plan), but they would have to contract with private insurers. Cantwell herself “declined to liken her proposal to a controversial public option, which has become a major sticking point in health care reform.” “I think we’ve hit the sweet spot,” she said. “Everybody says they want to have private providers and we’re saying fine.”

Grassley praises Medicare as part of ‘social fabric’ of America, but also criticizes it as a ‘predator.’

During this morning’s debate over Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s (D-WV) public plan amendment, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) challenged Sen. Chuck Grassley’s (R-IA) claim that the public option would lead to single payer health care. The exchange flustered Grassley. He admitted that Medicare is part of the “social fabric” of America and praised the competition between traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage, but then said moments later that the government is a “predator.” “So you don’t want Medicare?” Schumer asked. Grassley concluded, “Medicare is part of the social fabric of America, and I think there’s a lot wrong with it.” Watch it:

According to a Congressional Budget Office analysis of Rockefeller’s amendment — which establishes a plan that reimburses providers at 5% above Medicare rates for the first two years — the public option would save the government an estimated $50 billion. Only eight million Americans would sign-up for the program, leaving the overwhelming majority of Americans to private coverage. Rockefeller’s amendment ultimately failed by a vote of 15-8.

Hatch delays health care mark-up by questioning constitutionality of individual health mandate.

During last night’s walk-through of the Senate Finance Committee’s health care bill, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) pulled out his bag of tricks to delay and obstruct the mark-up process. He asked waves of repetitive questions, insisted that the individual mandate provision was unconstitutional, and lectured Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) for allegedly caving to White House pressure and “rushing” — despite 9 months of grueling negotiations. “I certainly don’t want to be a clog or obnoxious about this,” Hatch said at one point, but added, “I’ve got plenty of questions.” Watch a compilation:

“We ought to look at these things seriously and we ought to ask all the questions that we have,” Hatch insisted, before proceeding to ask staffers with no experience in constitutional law at least four separate questions about the phony issue regarding the constitutionality of the individual mandate. The Wonk Room has more.