Posted on 02/26/2010 9:32:54 AM PST by Reagan Man
Obama exaggerated. Boehner lied. Reid was incorrect. Ryan is wrong.
An army of partisan fact checkers bombarded the media through seven hours of the health care summit with such deep thoughts — replete with cherry-picked data — confirming the adage that there’s lies, damn lies and statistics.
Some of the jabs were dead on, but some were merely meant to back up partisan talking points. Still, there were plenty of factually challenged statements.
With a nod to Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley’s statement that the Congressional Budget Office is “God” in his book — the media deify CBO figures as well — here is POLITICO’s selection of the top whoppers from Thursday’s summit.
Reid wrong on reconciliation
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told Republicans at the health care summit that “no one has talked about reconciliation.”
Actually, everybody’s been talking about reconciliation.
Reid himself told a Nevada TV show last week that reconciliation was an option. “I’ve had many conversations this week with the president, his chief of staff and Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi,” Reid said. “And we’re really trying to move forward on this.”
Sure, Reid has said that reconciliation is not the only means for getting the bill passed.
But 23 Senate Democrats have signed on to a letter pushing the public insurance option through reconciliation, including Sens. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Chuck Schumer of New York.
On Wednesday, Menendez told MSNBC, “There are a lot more people who I believe will join. When you get to a certain number, there is a tipping point, and people who may have felt like it’s not possible may feel it’s possible.”
As POLITICO reported this week, even some of the Senate moderates who were adamantly opposed to reconciliation have signaled that they’re warming up to the idea.
Alexander vs. Obama on premiums
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said millions of Americans who buy their insurance individually would see higher premiums under the Democratic plan.
He’s technically right — but he’s cherry-picking. Alexander was talking about only 17 percent of those with insurance in 2016. For the other tens of millions with insurance, their premiums would stay flat or decline, according to the CBO.
On top of that, the Democrats would provide significant subsidies to about half of those 17 percent.
And Obama was correct that the quality of insurance for those who buy in this so-called nongroup market — meaning without the help of an employer — will generally improve.
CBO analysts threw lots of caveats into its 29-page report in November, saying that massive reform of the health system could change behavior and lead to unintended consequences.
Boehner claim on GOP ideas
House Minority Leader John Boehner tweeted that Democrats “do not implement a single major GOP reform that would lower costs for families and small businesses.”
But three of the 11 pages in the plan President Barack Obama released Monday focus on tackling “waste, fraud and abuse” — chock-full of Republican ideas.
Seven of the 14 proposals in that section are credited to a House bill authored by Illinois Republican Rep. Mark Kirk. Another proposal to create a comprehensive database of sanctions against doctors for misusing Medicaid and Medicare was lifted from the Republican Study Committee.
Obama took the idea for a real-time database of claims — to more quickly detect possible fraudulent payments — from an amendment authored by Illinois Republican Rep. Peter Roskam.
Boehner’s office countered that these are hollow promises. A news release said, “When you dig beneath the newly minted rhetoric and actually look at the text of their bills, it quickly becomes evident that they haven’t actually incorporated any of the major health care reforms Republicans support.”
Employers dumping insurance
Obama disputed House Minority Whip Eric Cantor’s claim that employers will dump insurance when the government gets involved in the market.
But Cantor is partially right.
Under the bill passed by the House in November, an estimated 12 million people would lose the insurance they now get from their employers because it would be cheaper for their companies to have them buy coverage through the public insurance exchange — forcing them into a new system. That analysis came in November from the chief actuary at the independent Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, part of the Department of Health and Human Services.
To be fair, the report found that 15 million additional employees would get coverage from their employers under the House bill — meaning that about 3 million more people would have employer-provided coverage than in the status quo, so the numbers may balance out.
With the death of the public option, however, these points may be moot.
Harkin exaggerates GOP inclusion
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said the Senate health care plan contains nine of the 10 principles contained in the House GOP plan.
That’s only sort of true.
Harkin was referring to the “common-sense reforms” Republicans have proposed but not necessarily actual bill language.
Though they may agree on some broad principles, Democrats and Republicans disagree completely on how to execute these ideas. The House GOP plan focuses mainly on high-risk insurance pools, health savings accounts and medical malpractice reform. Senate Democrats’ plan includes an individual mandate, standardization of benefits and an end to pre-existing conditions.
Despite what some will say, there isn’t nearly as much agreement between the parties on health care as Harkin indicated.
Ryan overhypes Medicare Advantage hit
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) claimed that under the Democrats’ plan, millions of seniors will lose their Medicare Advantage plans.
Not quite.
According to health policy experts, it’s fair to say that if the Democrats have their way, the benefits provided by Medicare Advantage will be reduced — which means that a number of seniors might choose not to enroll in the program in the future. That doesn’t mean people are going to “lose” their plans, exactly — just that fewer are likely to enroll. Seniors would still be guaranteed their traditional Medicare benefits.
Politico isn’t exactly a sterling source for unbiased or honest news, now.
The CBO can only answer questions that they are asked. Even if they see others things that can go wrong, they can’t say anything. So....Democrats didn’t ask the important questions because they didn’t want the American people to hear the answers.
Senate Democrats’ plan includes an individual mandate, standardization of benefits and an end to pre-existing conditions.And that takes 2,000 pages to legislate...Got tit,
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) claimed that under the Democrats’ plan, millions of seniors will lose their Medicare Advantage plans.That's called losing your plan -democrat apologist dimwits.Not quite.
According to health policy experts, it’s fair to say that if the Democrats have their way, the benefits provided by Medicare Advantage will be reduced
Why are they not even mentioning that Pelosi flat out lied when she said there is no taxpayer funded abortion in any of the three bills? I was furious when I heard that.
He’s technically right — but he’s cherry-picking. Alexander was talking about only 17 percent of those with insurance in 2016. For the other tens of millions with insurance, their premiums would stay flat or decline, according to the CBO.
If millions of people are going to see higher premiums, I don't consider that cherry-picking.
Americans can be divided into four basic groups for healthcare. Those with employee provided benefits, those who buy their own coverage, those with government provided benefits, and the uninsured.
Out of those groups Sen. Alexander highlighted the group that is most vulnerable when the government screws this up. That is not cherry-picking.
Just for fun, I went to MSNBC last night to see What Chrissy Matthews had to say and he was almost giddy; talking about how STRONG President Obama was and how he put those Republicans in their place.
I wonder if he got another tingle down his leg? I believe the guy is queer for Obama.
What scares me is when they talk about removing the pre-tax premiums and then taxing health care as income. They would have to pull the health care deduction for spending over 7.5 percent of AGI on medical at that point, or they wouldn't see a revenue benefit.
Lets call the whole thing off,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
eye opening. Thanks for cranking out the math.
He’s technically right — but he’s cherry-picking. Alexander was talking about only 17 percent of those with insurance in 2016.Well by 2016 everyone would be required by Obamalaw to have insurance. 17 percent of a a population of 300 million is over 50 million people...That's cherry picking?
For the other tens of millions with insurance, their premiums would stay flat or decline, according to the CBO.When did the CBO start dictating what insurance premiums would be?
CBO is counting on the new policies to drive all the private insurers out of the market. That leaves only the government. The monopoly provider of insurance will indeed dictate the rates. You won't have a viable option nor a legal means of escaping the obligation to pay the dictated amount.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.