• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Politifact weighs in on chain email criticizing Obama's health care plan

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It may be the longest chain e-mail we've ever received. A page-by-page analysis of the House health care bill argues that reform will end the health care system as we know it: "Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed! ... Page 42: The 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. ... Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services."
So what about these claims? Most are untrue, and some of them have even earned the distinction of "Pants on Fire". But read the article and see for yourself.

there are plenty of honest and effective ways to hit Obama's health care plan. This chain email is not one of them, nor is any other writing from "Looney Tunes Land".

Article is here
.
 
Last edited:
A good rule of thumb is to reject such dumb ass sources out of hand. Of course it's not true. And, of course, those prone to believing it will. I heard about 5 minutes of a conversation between some Congressman and his constituents in Alabama today. They were criticizing things that the Congressman (who is AGAINST the plan) had to tell them were not even in the current bill. Idiots. And where did they get the wrong info? Likely from another idiot who got it from a chain e-mail.

Plus, the likelihood of the bill that passed through commitee getting passed is very slim. It needs to go to the House, where people will change things, then to the Senate, where people will change things, then the two bills need to be reconciled.
 
Last edited:
I started reading the bill last night and I'm up to page 51. So far, I'd say the things PolitiFact has called out are correct insofar as how far I've gotten. The bill is abit hard to follow because it's broken up into several Divisions, Titles, Subtitles, sections and subparagraphs. In some cases, it references a subtitle or section, but it doesn't stipulate which Division or Title the subtitle or section is part of. It also references at least three other Acts - the Employee Retirement Income Act, the Public Health Service Act and the Social Security Act - as well as the Internal Revenue Code and the U.S. Code.

In all honesty, in order to really get to the detailed nuts and bolts of the bill, you really do need the other references. But if all you're trying to do is get the general scope of the bill, reading it as a standalone document should suffice. The only thing I've found questionable about the bill so far is in Division A, Title I, Subtitle A, Section 116(a): Rebates to Enrollees. This section doesn't say how much the rebates will be worth or who pays for them. I'm sure if I keep reading I'll find it, but so far I haven't found the answer to that question. Again, I just got started.
 
In all honesty, in order to really get to the detailed nuts and bolts of the bill, you really do need the other references. But if all you're trying to do is get the general scope of the bill, reading it as a standalone document should suffice. The only thing I've found questionable about the bill so far is in Division A, Title I, Subtitle A, Section 116(a): Rebates to Enrollees. This section doesn't say how much the rebates will be worth or who pays for them. I'm sure if I keep reading I'll find it, but so far I haven't found the answer to that question. Again, I just got started.
What is most disturbing about HR3200 is precisely this: It is so complex, so tortured, so byzantine, that it is highly unlikely anyone has a full and complete grasp of what is in the bill.

There is no way for Congress to argue this is a good bill, because they do not know its contents. They cannot assert with sincerity the net positive nature of the bill, because such an assertion requires a degree of knowledge that arguably cannot be had, and almost certainly cannot be had in the compressed time frame afforded Congress on this matter. Neither the Congress nor the Administration have so much as a clue as to the practical consequences that will arise from this bill--they have their hopes and they have their dreams, but they do not have factual support that this bill will realize those hopes and those dreams.

As a matter of practical governance, a bill which cannot be demonstrably defended to be a good bill should be regarded as a bad bill, and rejected on that basis alone.
 
What is most disturbing about HR3200 is precisely this: It is so complex, so tortured, so byzantine, that it is highly unlikely anyone has a full and complete grasp of what is in the bill.

There is no way for Congress to argue this is a good bill, because they do not know its contents. They cannot assert with sincerity the net positive nature of the bill, because such an assertion requires a degree of knowledge that arguably cannot be had, and almost certainly cannot be had in the compressed time frame afforded Congress on this matter. Neither the Congress nor the Administration have so much as a clue as to the practical consequences that will arise from this bill--they have their hopes and they have their dreams, but they do not have factual support that this bill will realize those hopes and those dreams.

As a matter of practical governance, a bill which cannot be demonstrably defended to be a good bill should be regarded as a bad bill, and rejected on that basis alone.

The same reasoning that applies to scientific theories, and clearly shows that this kind of reasoning applies equally well outside of science.
 
What is most disturbing about HR3200 is precisely this: It is so complex, so tortured, so byzantine, that it is highly unlikely anyone has a full and complete grasp of what is in the bill.

There is no way for Congress to argue this is a good bill, because they do not know its contents. They cannot assert with sincerity the net positive nature of the bill, because such an assertion requires a degree of knowledge that arguably cannot be had, and almost certainly cannot be had in the compressed time frame afforded Congress on this matter. Neither the Congress nor the Administration have so much as a clue as to the practical consequences that will arise from this bill--they have their hopes and they have their dreams, but they do not have factual support that this bill will realize those hopes and those dreams.

As a matter of practical governance, a bill which cannot be demonstrably defended to be a good bill should be regarded as a bad bill, and rejected on that basis alone.

That's why they have committees to review such complex documents. I agree with everyone who believed that because of the complexity of our nation's health care system, this health care reform bill did NOT need to be rushed through the House. But I also believe that a overhaul of our health system is necessary.
 
the chain-mail didn't even bother to copy-paste! although full-government run health care can be considered rationed-health care, regardless, isn't it easier just to read the actual bill and attack what is in the actual bill?
 
That's why they have committees to review such complex documents. I agree with everyone who believed that because of the complexity of our nation's health care system, this health care reform bill did NOT need to be rushed through the House. But I also believe that a overhaul of our health system is necessary.
If it's too complicated for the folks doing the actual voting to comprehend it, it's too complicated, period.

Break it down, simplify it. There's no limit to the number of bills Congress can enact into law, so if it takes 1,000 simple bills, let it take 1,000 simple bills.

If it can't be done that way, perhaps that's nature's way of telling Congress it is on the wrong path, and should find a different approach.

If solving a problem requires growing government, the solution is most likely worse than the original problem.
 
So far, I haven't read anything in the bill that would increase the size of government. If anything, the bill formulates a committee that was already established by a previous law from the last administration. All this bill is doing is putting that committee into affect. Nothing more. I've been reading the darn thing off and on all day (up to page 68 from page 51 from this morning; I do have a life afterall), and I have yet to come across any aspect of the bill that creates another possition, branch or office of government that wasn't already established by another law that was already in place from some previous piece of legistlation. So far, I haven't been able to find one thing that the opposition has claimed to be so bad about the bill. Again, I'm just really getting started, but I have yet to see the bad things folk have said is in it.

Not saying there isn't something negative about it; I just haven't come across anything...yet.

I will say this about the bill; there are alot of amendments (changes) in it that changes some things from other Acts that are law, i.e., there are some pen-n-ink changes to the Social Security Act, for example, that are addressed in the bill. You'd think those changes would be incorporated into the SS Act itself, but since they affect health insurance issues w/those receiving Social Security, I can understand why the changes are address herein. But to that I'd agree; they could have simply did a bill that modified the SS Act instead of putting it in the HCF bill. But again for the sake of consistency since they are health insurance related issues, I can understand why they'd incorporate the changes herein.
 
Last edited:
So far, I haven't read anything in the bill that would increase the size of government.

Language creating new agencies/commissions/officials:

SEC. 141. HEALTH CHOICES ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CHOICES COMMISSIONER.
There is hereby established, as an independent agency in the executive branch of the Government, a Health Choices Administration (in this division referred to as the `Administration').
SEC. 1401. COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH.
`(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (in this section referred to as the `Center') to conduct, support, and synthesize research (including research conducted or supported under section 1013 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003) with respect to the outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically.
SEC. 1802. COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH TRUST FUND; FINANCING FOR TRUST FUND.
`(a) Creation of Trust Fund- There is established in the Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the `Health Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund' (hereinafter in this section referred to as the `CERTF'), consisting of such amounts as may be appropriated or credited to such Trust Fund as provided in this section and section 9602(b).
SEC. 2231. PUBLIC HEALTH WORKFORCE CORPS.
`(a) Establishment- There is established, within the Service, the Public Health Workforce Corps (in this subpart referred to as the `Corps'), for the purpose of ensuring an adequate supply of public health professionals throughout the Nation. The Corps shall consist of--
SEC. 3131. TASK FORCE ON CLINICAL PREVENTIVE SERVICES.
`(a) In General- The Secretary, acting through the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, shall establish a permanent task force to be known as the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services (in this section referred to as the `Task Force').
SEC. 3132. TASK FORCE ON COMMUNITY PREVENTIVE SERVICES.
`(a) In General- The Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall establish a permanent task force to be known as the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (in this section referred to as the `Task Force').
SEC. 2401. IMPLEMENTATION OF BEST PRACTICES IN THE DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE.
(a) In General- There is established the Center for Quality Improvement (referred to in this part as the `Center'), to be headed by the Director.
SEC. 2402. ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HEALTH INFORMATION.
(a) In General- There is established within the Department an Assistant Secretary for Health Information (in this section referred to as the `Assistant Secretary'), to be appointed by the Secretary.
SEC. 2521. NATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICE REGISTRY.
(g)(1) The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the `registry') to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that--
 
Thanks for pointing the above issues out, but as I said, I haven't gotten that far yet. And if it's all the same to you, I'd rather wait and read the entire bill before affirming the things you've pointed out as new departments, administrators, or agencies established under the bill as opposed to same established by another law. As I stated previously, the Commissionor and the Secretary were already outlined in previous legistlation. It's quite possible all or most of the entities you've mentioned come along with those and are only re-emphisised in the bill. I'll get back to you with my findings. If I find that what you've pointed out is true I'll let you know.
 
During the California Elections, every registered voter is sent an election packet that contains the propositions on that years ballot. In addition to providing the full text of the bill, each proposition also has a non-partisan summary and an objective budget analysis. Also included are an equal number of for/against arguments from 3rd party interest groups.

Such a system would also help with Congressional legislation. Just having a non-partisan summary for every bill would be a significant step in making legislation comprehendable to the citizenry.
 
It's slow going (I'm up to page 100), but here's what I've learn about the HCR bill so far...

Under the bill, a new department called the Health Choices Administration will be created headed by a Health Choices Commissioner (or "Commissioner) who will work in concert with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. The overall purpose of the bill is to establish the public health option of health care (government run) that will compete with the private sector. The public health option is called the Health Insurance Exchange (HIE). The HIE will provide health care insurance plans on four levels: large business, small business (divided into two segments - smaller business [up to 20 employees] and smallest business [less than 20 employees], self-employeed and individual coverage. All plans will provide the same types of health coverage: hospitalization, outpatient hospital/clinic care, emergency services, doctor care (general physician and professional/surgical care), prescription drugs, maternity and well-baby care, vision and hearing, rehab services, prescribed medical equipment and medical supplies.

The Commissioner is appointed by the President and serves a minimum 3-yr term. The Commissioner is charged with managing all aspects of the HIE and is required to submit annual reports to the President on recommendations to improve health care services under the HIE.

Insurance plans under the HIE are suppose to be on-par with private sector insurance plans. Health care premiums under the HIE are suppose to be competitively priced with that of private sector health insurance. To assist the Commissioner in ensuring compliance w/HIE standards, an 8-panel commission called the Health Benefits Advisory Committee is to be established headed by the U.S. Surgeon general and 7 other non-government individuals. Each committee member serves a 3-year term and do not receive a salary nor commission for serving on the committee. However, they will receive travel cost, if any, and per diem both at the government rate as established by law. The committee is required to perform periodic audits compiled from complaints submitted by individuals whose health insurance coverage is from the HIE. The committee is also required to perform periodic surveys to ensure customer satisfaction, as well as ensure health care entities are complying with HIE standards. Using information from these audits and surveys, the committee is required to submit a report (every 3 yrs) to the Commissioner on ways to improve health services, treatment and other administrative procedures under the HIE.

That's a general overview as to the primary purpose of the HCR bill. I will provide other information as I learn more in the coming days.
 
Last edited:
As promised, I said I'd post my questions or clarifications to the HCR bill as I understood more about what I read in the bill. So, here's my first Q & A/C issue ("Q" = Question obviously, and the "A/C" = Answer or Clarification):

C: Under Div A, Title I, sec. 102(a), all individuals who have health care insurance by the first day this bill is enacted (in year-1 (Y1), "2013") will retain their current health insurance. But if you go down and read subparagraph (b)(1)(A) "Grace Period", it reads:

In general, the Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1 (=20130), an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefits package requirement under section 121.

What does sec. 101 say as it applies to the above is:

Sec. 101 - Requirements for Qualified Health Benefits Plans: On or after the first day of Y1 (2013), a health benefits plan shall not be a qualified health benefits plan under this division ("A" to Title I) unless the plan meets the applicable requirements of the following subtitles for the type of plan and plan year invovled:

(1) Subtitle B - relating to affordable coverage
(2) Subtitle C - relating to essential benefits
(3) Subtitle D - relating to consumer protection

Subtitle B essentially states that no person shall be excluded or denied health care for pre-existing conditions nor should they be discriminated against on the grounds of their sex, race, or religious preference and that health insurance should be fairly and competitively priced.

Subtitle C is actually the sticking point. I'll get to why I beleive so in a moment.

Subtitle D essentially outlines how payments can be made using debit cards as a option to paying for medical cost, that grievances shall be handled fairly and impartially and that information concerning health insurance coverage shall be made available using the best means possible, i.e., the Internet, "plain language", and translated into other languages as necessary. (Though the later linguistic take isn't stated definatively that way, it's not hard to conclude that what it means is insurance information should also be marketed in Spanish or any other languange necessary for the individual police holder to understand it).

Now, back to Subtitle C. Here's how it reads:

A qualified health benefits plan shall provide coverage that at least meets the benefit standards adopted under section 124 for the "essential benefits package" described in section 122 for the plan year involved.

Well, now you have to know what section 124 and 122 say. So...

Section 124 essentially outlines how the Secretary (of Health & Human Services) will be adopt new or improved health care standards, if any. He can approve (adopt) them or disapprove them.

Section 122 essentially lifts a few of the restrictions we currently face in today's health care system, such as limiting annual benefits such as one or two dental cleanings per year for example, or restricting coverage of some benefits such as wellness and well-baby care. Such care would come under "essential health care" and make them more accessible and affordable. In-home care would also be covered, as well as, the equipment and services received for in-home care. Covered care (sec. 122(b)) would include:

  • Hospitalization
  • Outpatient hospital/clinic services
  • Emergency room services
  • Professional services by your physician
  • Health services equipment & supplies utilized for health care including in-home treatment and "institutionalized care" (i.e., nursing home care).
  • Prescription drugs
  • Rehab treatment
  • Mental health care
  • Substance abuse/use disorder
  • Preventive services
  • Maturity care (including well-baby and well-child care)
  • Dental (oral) health care
  • Vision Care
  • Hearing services, equipment and supplies

Essentially, anyone under the age of 21 who has health care will receive these benefits either under their current health care plan (as adopted by the Health Choices Administration) or if they chose to obtain health care coverage under the Health Insurance Exchange (public option) program.

Q: Per sec 122(c)(2)(B), the annual allowable limits for health care coverage under the HCR bill would be $5,000 per individual and $10,000 for families. However, these cost limits apply only to those expenses that come under "reference benefit packages" provided that there is no cost-sharing involved. Got it? Neither did I. So, my question to those who are in the health care industry is this: What exactly is a reference benefits package and how does cost-sharing fit into it as it applies to insurance coverage?
 
Last edited:
I'm up to page 149. There are three areas of the HCR bill I'd like to clear up:

1. Health Care to illegal immigrants. Not happening! Title II, Subtitle C:

Section 242: (paraphrase) non-immigrants are not entitled to receive credits that go towards paying premium for health care plans.

Section 246 reads: Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

Now, it is true that the HCR bill emphasizes the importance of health care literature and policies be written in "plain language" and that language barriers are addressed, but don't mistake this w/giving illegal aliens free access to medical care. The two sections above make it clear that illegal aliens will not receive health care coverage under the bill.

2. Rationing health care. I understand why folks are concerned about this, but relax. The HCR bill makes it the responsibility of the Secretary to submit to the Commissioner which recommendations as identified by the Health Choices Advisory Committee which improvements in health care benefits should be made part of health insurance policies. This has been viewed by some to be "the government making decisions on health insurance benefits". I understand that view point because the same changes that would take place in the HIE would also be required to be implimented in private sector health insurance plans. But here's the catch...

Right now, there is no uniformed means to ensure that the health care benefits offered from one policy presented by one insurance company are the same as offered in another policy offered by another insurance company. That decision is left to the individual insurance companies. And as we all know, most of us receive our health insurance through our employers. Hopefully, we're all reading our policies every year and reviewing them, but even so how many of you know whether or not your benefits package has improved from one year to the next? What this process of review will do is ensure that everyone has access to the same level of benefits no matter the insurer, no matter what part of the country you're from.

3. Small business will be over-taxed. I don't think so. Business large and small are have been required to pay an excise tax on the health insurance packages they provide to their employees per IRS laws since 1986. Small businesses would only be a penalty, just as large corperations, if they don't bring their benefits package(s) up to standard. I could see more small businesses moving to the HIE plans because they would be cheaper and it would be easier to comply with the new standards, but that doesn't mean that every small business would jump from the private sector to the public option. It just means that they'd have more options available to them from small-business co-ops, private sector insurance and the HIE. And like any business, they'll go with whatever is cheaper to meet the needs of their employees.
 
Back
Top Bottom