PolitiFact has the Top 10 facts to know about Heath Care Reform.
PolitiFact has checked hundreds of claims about health care reform and read the plans under consideration by Congress. As the Democrats move toward a final vote, we've selected 10 facts about the actual health care legislation that every voter should know. Agree with the measure or not, here's what it intends to do and where the big unknowns are. We've linked to our previous reporting on each issue throughout the story; click through for even more sources.
1. The plan is not a government takeover of health care like in Canada or Britain. The government will not take over hospitals or other privately run health care businesses. Doctors will not become government employees, like in Britain. And the U.S. government intends to help people buy insurance from private insurance companies, not pay all the bills like the single-payer system in Canada. The key parts of the current U.S. system -- employer-provided insurance, Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor -- would stay in place. The government would create health insurance exchanges for people who have to buy insurance on their own, so they could more easily compare plans and prices.
2. Insurance companies will be regulated more heavily. They will be told the minimum services they must cover, including preventive care. They will have to pay out a certain percentage of premiums for patient care. By 2014, when the exchanges open, insurers won't be able to deny customers for pre-existing conditions.
3. Everyone will have to have health insurance or pay a fine, a requirement known as the individual mandate. The government intends to cap premiums for people who make below a certain income. For people who buy insurance on the exchanges, a family of four making $88,000 would have a cap of 9.5 percent of their income. Lower incomes would have lower caps. The fine for not having insurance would be a minimum of $695 per person per year, with exemptions for financial hardship and other special cases.
4. Employers will not be required to buy insurance for their employees, but large employers may be subject to fines if they don't provide insurance. But Congress wanted to encourage employers, especially large employers, to offer insurance. So they created a fine for employers with more than 50 workers: If those employees buy insurance on the exchanges and qualify for a low-income credit from the government, then the employer would have to pay a fine. Fines are calculated based on number of employees; for large firms, the fines could be significant.
5. The vast majority of people will not see significant declines in premiums. When President Obama talks about premiums going down, he usually means they won't go up as much as they would otherwise. For the 4-out-of-5 who get their insurance through their employer, the savings would land in the 0 to 3 percent range by 2016, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO. People who buy insurance on their own, but who don't qualify for government subsidies, could actually see their premiums rise by as much as 10 to 13 percent, but that's largely because they'll be getting beefed-up policies that would pay for more basic services, especially preventive care. Low-income people who qualify for new credits to buy insurance would see the biggest drops.
6. The plan might or might not bend the curve on health spending. Critics say there aren't enough provisions to reduce waste or fraud, but Democrats say they're not being given enough credit for new cost-saving pilot programs that could be rapidly expanded. The most recent estimate of the plan, released Thursday by the CBO, said that it would spend $940 billion over 10 years. But new taxes, penalties and cost savings would offset that spending, according to the CBO, so that overall the plan pay for itself, dropping the deficit by slightly $138 billion over 10 years. Obama has said the plan will save more than $1 trillion in the second 10 years, but that estimate, according to the CBO, is highly speculative.
7. The government-run Medicare program will keep paying medical bills for seniors, but it will begin implementing cost controls on health care providers, mostly through penalties and incentives. The legislation would reduce payments for hospital-acquired infections or preventable hospital admissions. For Medicare Advantage, the federal government intends to reduce extra payments, taking away subsidies to private insurance companies. Insurers will likely cut benefits in order to not lose profits. The bill does not address the "doctor's fix," an expected proposal that Congress usually passes to prevent doctor's Medicare payments from severe cuts.
8. Medicaid, a joint federal-state program for the poor, will cover all of the poor, instead of just a few groups the way it currently does. Right now, to qualify for Medicaid, a person has to be poor and also disabled, elderly, pregnant or a child. Under the new plan, all poor adults would qualify.
9. The government won't pay for elective abortions. But under the Senate plan, people will be able to buy insurance that covers abortion on the new health insurance exchanges, as long as the insurance company pays for the services with patient premiums, not taxpayer subsidies. Medicaid has an exemption for cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother.
10. No one is proposing new benefits for illegal immigrants. Some House members had hoped that illegal immigrants would be able to buy insurance with their own money through the new exchanges, but that now appears unlikely.
Everyone needs to know the truth.
We've been fact-checking claims about health care for more than a year now, and have noted several distortions that won't seem to die. Here's five that resurface gain and again.
1. It bans private insurance in favor of a government-run plan. Opponents have repeatedly said the plan would force Americans off their current plans, even though most current plans would be allowed to continue. Republican House Republican leader John Boehner said that "forcing Americans off of their current health coverage and onto a government-run plan (is) exactly what the Democrats' plan would do." We rated that False.
2. Preventive care saves the whole health care system money. People who favor the plan regularly imply that preventive care will lower its overall cost. While early treatment can save individual patients money, research shows that the benefits don't outweigh the costs of the additional screening procedures. President Barack Obama said preventive care "saves money." We rated that False.
3. Millions of people will lose coverage. Opponents of the plan have argued that millions of people would lose their health insurance. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that the proposal would result in insurance for 94 percent of the country. Republican commentator Nancy Pfotenhauer said that "hundreds of millions of people (will) lose their current insurance coverage." We rated that Pants on Fire.
4. The plan will lower health insurance premiums for most people. A few people will see significant reductions in what they pay for health insurance if they qualify for low-income tax credits to buy their policies. But the vast majority of Americans will see no decrease or a very slight decrease in premiums, according to projections. Obama said, "The costs for families (in the individual market) for the same type of coverage that they're currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent." We rated that Half True. Obama's statement is true only for those in the individual market who are buying comprehensive plans right now. For people buying high-deductible, low-cost plans, the premiums will increase, because they'll have to buy plans that offer more coverage.
5. Bureaucrats will dictate treatment for patients, or tell you what insurance plan you have to buy. The proposal does include new boards to make recommendations on evidence-based treatment. But they won't consider any individual cases or deny procedures for specific patients. The bill also sets minimum standards for insurance companies, creating a baseline for basic coverage. People will still be able to pick the plan they prefer. We received a chain e-mail that said, "The 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None." We rated that Pants on Fire.
The president's health care proposals will cause "most Americans to have their premiums increased, not decreased, and hundreds of millions of people lose their current insurance coverage."
Nancy Pfotenhauer, Wednesday, January 27th, 2010.
Ruling: Pants on Fire! | Details
"Forcing Americans off of their current health coverage and onto a government-run plan isn't the answer, but that's exactly what the Democrats' plan would do."
John Boehner, Monday, October 26th, 2009.
Ruling: False | Details
Preventive care "saves money."
Barack Obama, Wednesday, September 9th, 2009.
Ruling: False | Details
In the health care bill, "The 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None."
Chain e-mail, Tuesday, July 28th, 2009.
Ruling: Pants on Fire! | Details
Shame on us. Shame on this body. Shame on everyone of you who substitutes your will and your desires above those of your fellow countrymen.That's right, shame on John Boehner and each and every Republican who voted NO on health care reform and threw their constituents' interests under the bus for their own will of defeating the Democrats.
It is Sunday morning. There is supposed to be a vote on health care reform today. I assume that Glenn Beck is ensconced in church and praying madly for failure.I was not aware that it was Lent until Glenn Beck said that scheduling a vote during Lent and on the Sabbath was an "affront to God." Unlike Republicans in 2005 when they voted on Palm Sunday in the Terri Schiavo matter?
I am not big on churches.
But as it is Lent - maybe the Catholic Bishops could give up two things:
1) Molesting children and covering for those who do.
2) Telling women what to do with their bodies.
Just a thought. Like I said, I'm not big on churches.
Enough said!
When it comes to the health care reform bill, perfect is the enemy of good. But Republicans are the enemy of everything. And on Sunday, every member of the House GOP will likely vote against the final health care reform bill that will bring coverage to 32 million more Americans, end insurance company abuses involving rescission, pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps on payments, all while slashing the federal budget deficit by $1.3 trillion over the next two decades.
But in saying no in that simple up-or-down vote scheduled for Sunday, Congressional Republicans are choosing to perpetuate the worsening symptoms of an American health care system already in critical condition.
Here, then, are the 10 Republican No's on health care:
- No Hope for the 50 Million Uninsured
- No Improvement for 25 Million More Underinsured
- No Halt to the Rapid Deterioration of Employer-Based Coverage
- No Help for the 1 in 5 Americans Already Postponing Their Medical Care
- No Drop in the 62% of Bankruptcies Due to Medical Bills
- No End to Double-Digit Increases in Business Insurance Premiums
- No Barrier to Family Premiums Doubling in 10 Years
- No Reduction of the Near-Monopoly Status in 94% of Insurance Markets
- No Reversing the Dramatic Decline in Emergency Room Capacity
- No Rescue for the 45,000 Uninsured Americans Needlessly Dying Each Year
- No Chance for Failing Red State Health Care
Abusive, derogatory and even racist behavior directed at House Democrats by Tea Party protesters on Saturday left several lawmakers in shock.
Preceding the president's speech to a gathering of House Democrats, thousands of protesters descended around the Capitol to protest the passage of health care reform. The gathering quickly turned into abusive heckling, as members of Congress passing through Longworth House office building were subjected to epithets and even mild physical abuse.
A staffer for Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told reporters that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-M.D.) had been spit on by a protestor. Rep. John Lewis (D-G.A.), a hero of the civil rights movement, was called a 'ni--er.' And Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was called a "faggot," as protestors shouted at him with deliberately lisp-y screams. Frank, approached in the halls after the president's speech, shrugged off the incident.
But Clyburn was downright incredulous, saying he had not witnessed such treatment since he was leading civil rights protests in South Carolina in the 1960s.
"It was absolutely shocking to me," Clyburn told the Huffington Post. "Last Monday, this past Monday, I stayed home to meet on the campus of Claflin University where fifty years ago as of last Monday... I led the first demonstrations in South Carolina, the sit ins... And quite frankly I heard some things today I have not heard since that day. I heard people saying things that I have not heard since March 15, 1960 when I was marching to try and get off the back of the bus.""It doesn't make me nervous as all," the congressman said, when asked how the mob-like atmosphere made him feel. "In fact, as I said to one heckler, I am the hardest person in the world to intimidate, so they better go somewhere else."
Asked if he wanted an apology from the group of Republican lawmakers who had addressed the crowd and, in many ways, played on their worst fears of health care legislation, the Democratic Party, and the president, Clyburn replied:
"A lot of us have been saying for a long time that much of this, much of this is not about health care a all. And I think a lot of those people today demonstrated that this is not about health care... it is about trying to extend a basic fundamental right to people who are less powerful."
It's not about intimidation, it's about ignorance.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Conservative Libertarian | ||||
| ||||
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Don't Mess With Textbooks | ||||
| ||||
Since Texas certifies texts centrally rather than by individual school districts, publishers have a strong incentive to alter their books to conform to its standards so as to reach the huge Texas market. Where was Lee Harvey Oswald, after all, when he shot John F. Kennedy? In the Texas School Book Depository--a tall Dallas building filled with textbooks.The issue revolves around the make-up of the board and the reasons for these changes.
During the past three days, “the board’s far-right faction wielded their power to shape lessons on the civil rights movement, the U.S. free enterprise system and hundreds of other topics”:Is this a conservative revision of American history?– To avoid exposing students to “transvestites, transsexuals and who knows what else,” the Board struck the curriculum’s reference to “sex and gender as social constructs.”
– The Board removed Thomas Jefferson from the Texas curriculum, “replacing him with religious right icon John Calvin.”
– The Board refused to require that “students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others.”
– The Board struck the word “democratic” from the description of the U.S. government, instead terming it a “constitutional republic.”
More interesting is what the new standards tell us about conservatives' overall vision of American history and society and how they hope to instill that vision in the young. The standards run from kindergarten through high school, and certain themes obsessively recur. Judging from the updated social studies curriculum, conservatives want students to come away from a Texas education with a favorable impression of: women who adhere to traditional gender roles, the Confederacy, some parts of the Constitution, capitalism, the military and religion. They do not think students should learn about women who demanded greater equality; other parts of the Constitution; slavery, Reconstruction and the unequal treatment of nonwhites generally; environmentalists; labor unions; federal economic regulation; or foreigners.Here are a few examples. The board has removed mention of the Declaration of the Seneca Falls Convention, the letters of John and Abigail Adams and suffrage advocate Carrie Chapman Catt. As examples of "good citizenship" for third graders, it deleted Harriet Tubman and included Clara Barton, founder of the Red Cross, and Helen Keller (the board seems to have slipped up here--Keller was a committed socialist). The role of religion--but not the separation of church and state--receives emphasis throughout. For example, religious revivals are now listed as one of the twelve major "events and eras" from colonial days to 1877.
Fox News has been fanning the flames of this conspiracy theory in recent weeks with paranoid reporting about the Texas State Board of Education’s deliberations over how to alter its social studies curriculum. In a series of reports it is calling the “Texas Textbook Wars,” Fox has openly speculated that founding fathers such as George Washington are going to be removed from textbooks, Independence Day will be deleted, Christmas will be removed, and that the Texas Board of Education has reccomended starting the teaching of history at 1877.
ThinkProgress has compiled a montage of some of Fox’s outlandish and inaccurate claims. Watch it:
Within the Democratic Caucus, opponents of the healthcare bill range from right-leaning Democrats, who want to include harsh anti-abortion measures or who think it’s too expensive, as well progressive Democrats, who are insisting on a public option.
But now a number of Democrats who have decided to vote for the bill have also signed onto the Public Option Act, a measure that would allow people under sixty-five to buy into Medicare. The bill, also known as the Medicare You Can Buy Into Act, was introduced on the House floor last week by Florida Congress member Alan Grayson.
Join Congressman Alan Grayson in calling for a vote on the Medicare buy-in.
Read the letter and sign onto the petition today!
Go to: wewantmedicare.com
Via Center for American Progress:
Energy Alternatives Do Matter
From the Cartoonist Group.
Americans strongly support increased federal funding for research on wind, solar, and hydrogen technology. The public hasn't given up on clean energy and neither should policymakers.
More: Public Still Favors the Transition to Clean EnergyConservatives have been doing their best to torpedo the movement toward clean energy by hyping controversies about the science behind global warming. But whatever effect these controversies have had on the public they do not appear to have undermined support for action on the clean energy front.
Take support for a cap-and-trade approach to limiting carbon dioxide emissions. Back in October, views on this approach were running 50-39 in favor according to a Pew Research Center poll. Recently, Pew tested this approach again and actually found a slight widening of support to 52-35 in favor.
The same poll also shows support for a wide range of ways to address America’s energy supply. But, as in almost all other polls, the most popular option is to promote alternative energy. By 78-17, the public wants to see increased federal funding for research on wind, solar, and hydrogen technology.
Policymakers, take note. The public hasn’t given up on clean energy and neither should you.
Oh those activist judges...conservative that is!!!!The Los Angeles Times performed a serious act of journalism by covering the interesting conflict of interest facing Justice Clarence Thomas.
Mr. Thomas is married to Virginia Thomas, who just launched Liberty Central. The lead endorsement comes from two prominent Tea Party activists.
Liberty Central is thoughtfully organized under tax law as a c(4). It can take unlimited corporate contributions, not disclose them, and engage in partisan activities.
Ponder that for just a moment. The wife of a Supreme Court justice has organized a political non-profit linked to Tea Party activists whose activities can be supported to an unlimited extent by corporations whose donations need not be disclosed to the public. Similarly, Mrs. Thomas is under no obligation to disclose her compensation to anybody.
None of this appears to be illegal in part due to the recent Citizens United court ruling by the Supreme Court that freed corporation contributions from certain key restrictions. That radical and controversial decision passed by a 5-4 vote, and surprise, Justice Thomas voted yes.
When the Times asked Mrs. Thomas about this interesting situation, she responded with the traditional right wing charge of the media imposing a double standard on conservatives, pointing out that the elected governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, is married to a federal judge. She conveniently left out that any political contributions to Mr. Rendell are both limited and fully disclosed under Federal law, and that Judge Rendell scrupulously avoids any political activities.
Justice Thomas has been a reliable right wing, pro-corporate vote since his first day on the court. He can hardly be described as a swing vote whose vote could be bought. But perhaps he could be rewarded for services rendered. Or, if service on the bench becomes tedious, he might be persuaded to extend his tenure if important cases are looming on the horizon.
It may even be that this inventive activity by Mrs. Thomas is nothing new in her family. Her own biography reveals that she has been employed by a series of right wing organizations -- an entity controlled by former Congressman Dick Armey, whose FreedomWorks is much of the money behind the Tea Party gatherings, Hillsdale College (well known as a favorite of hard right students), the Heritage Foundation, and the Chamber of Commerce, the preeminent purveyor of laundered corporate money. None of these organizations need reveal their corporate backers.
Mrs. Thomas and Judge Thomas can easily address the situation, of course. Liberty Central could simply voluntarily disclose all of its significant contributors in a manner much like, say, the Clinton Foundation. And Judge Thomas could simply recuse himself from any case involving a significant donor to his wife's (and thus his own) financial well being. Supreme Court Justices, short of impeachment, answer only to themselves in deciding upon recusal. They alone determine if a conflict exists and how to respond. If they say no conflict exist, they can opine away.
If Judge Thomas wished to be more supportive of his wife's endeavors, he could simply resign from the bench. It would be fascinating to see what level of support Liberty Central would then enjoy. One suspects little.
The New York Times recently revealed that a mere $31,000 in political contributions by a pay day lending mogul and his family and associates seemed to have purchased an exemption from Federal regulation.
No doubt Mrs. Thomas would never stoop so low.
A press release on its website says that the company wants to “eliminate the middle man” and run for Congress directly, rather than influencing it with corporate dollars:“Until now,” Murray Hill Inc. said in a statement, “corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves.”
“The strength of America,” Murray Hill Inc. says, “is in the boardrooms, country clubs and Lear jets of America’s great corporations. We’re saying to Wal-Mart, AIG and Pfizer, if not you, who? If not now, when?” [...]
Campaign Manager William Klein promises an aggressive, historic campaign that “puts people second” or even third. “The business of America is business, as we all know,” Klein says. “But now, it’s the business of democracy too.” Klein plans to use automated robo-calls, “Astroturf” lobbying and computer-generated avatars to get out the vote.
Murray Hill Inc. plans on spending “top dollar” to protect its investment. “It’s our democracy,” Murray Hill Inc. says, “We bought it, we paid for it, and we’re going to keep it.”
Murray Hill Inc. released its first campaign video Monday. A narrator in the video explains, “The way we see it, corporate America has been the driving force behind Congress for years. But now it’s time we got behind the wheel ourselves.”
Murray Hill Inc's spokesman Eric Hansel was recently interviewed by Thom Hartman non his radio show. Hansel explained to Hartmann that his company chose to run in the Republican primary because the GOP is more sympathetic to corporations.
You -- regardless of what the -- the American people have heard this for a year. The American people have rejected it. [...] You're ignoring by almost 3-1 the voices of the American people. We've got the Gallup Poll, the Rasmussen poll -- His lowest approval rating since he's been president...And yet he's still going to find some parliamentary trick and maneuver to giver it to the American people. It's like giving the American people the middle finger.
On Fox News yesterday, Neil Cavuto argued that Democrats want to get health care reform done before the Easter break because “they sure as heck don’t want to see those town hallers.” Cavuto, who was interviewing Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), then claimed that Democrats “agree the polls are increasingly looking worse for health care support.” Watch it:
Joel Benenson, the White House’s pollster of choice, argues in a new polling memo that “support for President Barack Obama’s health care plan has been building in the wake of his State of the Union speech in late January.”It isn’t just Obama’s pollster who has identified this shift. As Matt Yglesias pointed out yesterday, Pollster.com’s average of polls shows public opinion trending more favorably towards passing health care reform.
After examining the data, polling expert Mark Blumenthal concluded that “any way you slice it, there does appear to be a real tightening of opinion on health reform although as always, these results are snapshots and subject to change.”
Even though the GOP is predicting that if health care passes there will be doom and gloom, there is now evidence that many people want health care to pass.
Even a pro-life group is now urging Congress to pass the health care legislation.
Twenty-five pro-life Catholic theologians and Evangelical leaders yesterday sent letters to members of Congress urging them not to let misleading information about abortion provisions in the Senate health care bill block passage of sorely-needed reform.
Recently, the Catholic Health Association weighed in on the topic.
The Catholic Health Association, "the national leadership organization of more than 2,000 Catholic health care sponsors, systems, hospitals, long-term care facilities, and related organizations," has also sent Congress a letter urging lawmakers to pass the Senate health bill. The group writes that while the legislation isn't perfect, it is "'a major first step' toward covering all Americans and would make 'great improvements' for millions of people."
Are the Republicans listening?
