The media has portrayed the bipartisan health care summit as a duel between two political parties, tending to focus most of their coverage and commentary on the process of passing reform (i.e. reconciliation) and he-said-she said debates. Republican guests are invited to dispute Democrats and Democrats are brought on to argue with Republicans about the coverage and cost provisions of the President’s health care plan. The back and forth filters out the substantive portions of the summit.

One such example is in the area of women’s health. Critics have rightfully criticized the White House for inviting few women to the summit (of the 47 participants at today’s bipartisan health care summit, only five are female) and for the majority of first half, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was only female speaker. Immediately before lunch, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) began discussing women’s health disparities, but both CNN and MSNBC cut away to address the meeting’s political implication.

CNN interrupted Slaughter to discuss the summit’s lunch plans and MSNBC cut away for Rep. Mike Pence’s (R-IN) reaction. (Fox News carried the exchange.) Watch it:

The networks’ disregard for more substantive issues comes at a detriment to the public. After all, women make most family health decisions, insurers usually charge women more for coverage in the individual health insurance market and are less likely to offer benefits for women’s health. Significantly, the Democratic health care proposals would end insurer discrimination against women — who currently pay as much as 48% more for coverage than men — and give them access to preventive services with no cost sharing.

President Obama and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) got into a bit of a spat about whether or not the Senate health care bill actually reduces health care premiums. Obama conceded that Americans who purchase coverage in the individual market would see a 10-13% premium increase, but explained that they would be paying more for better coverage.

“What the Congressional Budget Office is saying is that if I now have an opportunity to actually buy a decent package inside the exchange that cost me about 10-13 percent more but is actually real insurance, then there are going to be a bunch of people who take advantage of that. So yes, I’m paying 10 to 13% more because instead of buying an apple, I’m getting an orange.” “They’re two different things,” he said.

Watch a compilation:

To be clear, Americans who qualify for subsidies would see very large cost savings. The CBO concluded that premiums will be “56 percent to 59 percent lower, on average than the nongroup premiums charged under current law.” Families will save $100-200 annually. Families purchasing coverage in the small business market could save up to $100 annually and those who seek insurance in the large-group market could save up to $200 annually, the CBO report found. Significantly, the premiums in these new insurance plans would cover a higher percentage of health care expenses (and provide more comprehensive coverage) than what’s currently available in the individual market. As Ezra Klein put it, “[t]he fact that I could buy a nicer car after getting a better job suggests that cars are becoming pricier. The bottom line is that if you’re comparing two plans that are exactly the same, costs go down after reform.”

Under the Senate bill, Americans can also purchase cheaper ‘Bronze-level’ insurance. In fact, another CBO report found that Americans who want to purchase a policy with a higher deductible would pay, on average, approximately $1,000 less that under current law:

This Bronze-level policy is rather skimpy. As the budget office explains, the “lower actuarial value would reduce premiums for Bronze plans directly, because the policy would pay for a smaller share of enrollees’ costs for covered services, and indirectly, because enrollees would use slightly fewer or less-expensive services when faced with the higher cost-sharing requirements included in Bronze plans.” Individuals would also face much higher deductibles and co payments. Still, the reformed Bronze policy would have to cover the “essential benefits” specified in the legislation and would likely be more comprehensive than policies available in the existing nongroup marketplace. The affordability credits and out-of-pocket spending caps included in the final reform legislation would also lower costs for Americans between 133%-400% of the federal poverty line.

This morning, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) refused to say what Republicans would be willing to “to give in return” if Democrats accepted GOP proposals after the bipartisan health care summit. Cornyn insisted that the Democrats must scrap the current legislation and start from scratch if they hope to win bipartisan support.

CNN anchor Kiran Chetry twice tried to ask Cornyn if there is “anything Republicans would be willing to give on in return,” but Cornyn responded by criticizing the existing legislation:

CORNYN: Really, I think it’s not possible to take this bill or this proposal, this 11 page summary and to work with it around the edges. We’re going to have to put it on the shelf. That’s what the American people want us to do and start over and we would be glad to do that.

Watch it:

Republicans have long argued, somewhat disingenuously, that capping non-economic damages would reduce health care spending and Obama has signaled that he may be willing to accept some of their proposals. It’s unlikely that Obama will adopt caps, but he could could embrace a ‘Sorry-Works’ proposal. While in the Senate, Obama also co-sponsored “legislation aimed at reducing both medical errors and lawsuits through a program known as Sorry Works, rooted in the idea that injured patients value an apology as much as money.” That legislation would have given physicians who disclosed their errors “certain protections from liability within the context of the program, in order to promote a safe environment for disclosure.”

I’ve proposed four other areas where Democrats and Republicans can reach bipartisan agreement here. But if Cornyn’s answer is any indication, Republicans are more interested in obstructing reform than passing it.

During today’s bipartisan health care summit, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) — who continues to argue that Congress is not able to pass comprehensive legislation — cautioned Democrats against using reconciliation to pass health care reform. “You can say that this process has been used before and that would be right, but it has never been used for anything like this,” he claimed:

ALEXANDER: Before we go further today that the Democratic Congressional leaders and you Mr. President renounce this idea of going back to the Congress and jamming through…a little used process we call reconciliation your version of the bill…Senator Byrd who is the constitutional authority of the Senate said it would be an outrage to run the health care bill th rough the Senate like a freight train iwth this process.

Watch it:

Since the House and Senate first used the budget reconciliation process in 1980, they passed at least 19 reconciliation bills that “have been enacted into law,” including major health care reform initiatives. Reconciliation legislation enacted in 1997 created the Children’s Health Insurance Program,” the Medicare Advantage program in 1997 (then called “Medicare+Choice”), and COBRA. In 2001 and 2003, Republicans broke the tradition of using reconciliation to lower the deficit and used the process to “enact a large tax cut that greatly increased federal deficits and debt.” In fact, political scientist Joshua Tucker’s analysis of reconciliation utilization found that “14 of the 19 times reconciliation was used between FY1981 – FY2005, it was used to advance Republican interests. Or, to put this more precisely, it was used to advance bills that were signed by Republican presidents or vetoed by Democratic presidents.”

Alexander, a former Governor and Secretary of Education, was elected to the Senate in 2003 and has personally voted for reconciliation at least four different times:

- 2003 Bush Tax Cuts: The Congressional Budget office, Bush’s tax cuts for the rich increased budget deficits by $60 billion in 2003 and by $340 billion by 2008. The bill had a cost of about a trillion dollars. [Alexander voted yes.]

- 2005 Deficit Reduction Act of 2005: The bill cut approximately $4.8 billion over five years and $26.1 billion over the next ten years from Medicaid spending. [Alexander voted yes.]

- 2005 Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005: The bill extended tax cuts on capital gains and dividends and the alternative minimum tax. [Alexander voted yes.]

- 2007 College Cost Reduction and Access Act: The bill forgave all remaining student loan debt after 10 years of public service. [Alexander voted yes]

It’s also unclear that Byrd opposes using reconciliation to pass some parts of health care reform. Today’s New York Times, quotes a Byrd spokesperson as saying, “Mr. Byrd is not [opposed to using reconciliation] ‘if it’s done right.‘”

Today’s Bipartisan Health Care Summit may be the end of the beginning for health care reform. While the President has tried to unite the Democratic party behind a single proposal, Republicans have proudly pronounced that they would not bring new ideas to the table. They’ve promised to reiterate their criticism of the existing Democratic legislation and speak in generalities about how the private market place can lower health care costs and achieve “universal access.”

And while their poll-tested talking points may sound convincing, the GOP solutions actually shift the costs and risks of insurance onto individuals and divides the market into low-cost plans for the healthy and high-cost insurance for the sick. This morning, the Wonk Room is releasing a Viewers Guide to the Bipartisan Health Care Summit. Here is what the GOP will say and why they’re wrong:

GOP CLAIM 1: Tort reform will significantly lower health care spending.

FACT: According to the Congressional Budget Office, malpractice costs are not the main driver of health care spending and the GOP’s prescription of capping non-economic damages has failed to reduce premiums on the state level. Indeed, states that have adopted reward caps have failed to significantly lower health care costs. When Texas capped non economic medical malpractice damages to $250,000 in 2003, most conservatives argued that the reform would free doctors from having to prescribe unnecessary treatment. It didn’t happen. According to the Dartmouth research on disparities in health care spending, many Texan doctors are still prescribing aggressive treatments that don’t improve outcomes and premiums continue to increase. In fact, as of 2006, Texas was still at the top of the list of high-spending states.

GOP CLAIM 2: Selling insurance across state lines will promote competition among insurance companies and lower premiums.

FACT: Selling policies across state lines would allow an insurer to choose a single ‘primary state’ “whose covered laws shall govern the health insurance issuer” and sell its policies nationwide. This will encourage companies to choose 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. In fact, the GOP house health bill requires a “health insurance issuer” to issue a “notice” informing consumers that policies sold from other states are “not subject to all of the consumer protection laws or restrictions on rate changes” of the state where the beneficiary lives. The Republican proposal also expands the definition of ‘state’ to not only include the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, but the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. This would allow the governments of the Virgin Islands or the Northern Mariana Islands to be the sole regulators. Given the record of corruption and general willingness of these countries to allow themselves to be used for off-shore banking and tax shelter entities, it is unlikely that these governments would provide effective oversight for market conduct, trade practices.

GOP CLAIM 3: Everyone will have “universal access” to insurance. Individuals who cannot purchase insurance in the individual market can be covered by high risk pools that states will be required to establish.

FACT: Nationwide, high-risk pools cover fewer than 200,000 people. Often, enrollees face high premiums and are denied benefits for treatments related to their preexisting conditions. Covering all high-risk Americans through these pools is likely to be prohibitively expensive. According to a 2008 report from the Tax Policy Center, using high-risk pools “to prevent large losses in insurance coverage among the sick and needy could be extremely expensive—on the order of $1 trillion over ten years given projected health care costs.”

Download the entire guide here.