Blog - Debunking Health Care Lies (by Reading the Bill) 
OpenCongress Blog
Blog Feed Comments Feed More RSS Feeds
Debunking Health Care Lies (by Reading the Bill)
August 13, 2009 - by Donny ShawWith Congress preparing to vote on health care reform this fall, talk of what’s in the major House bill has been dominating the news and political blogs. Unfortunately, the public discourse about health care reform has been harmed by false claims, scare tactics, and lies.
At OpenCongress, we’ve had the official text of the House health care bill available online for a month for people to read and get the facts: H.R. 3200 – America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Anyone can easily permalink and comment on any individual section of the full bill text. And in this debate, the facts matter — it’s imperative that as a nation we read the actual text of the bill and actively work to counter any misinformation about it. To be sure, it’s a long bill, and not easy to understand at first read. Some of the misinformation is intentional, and some is inadvertent. But whether you support or oppose this bill, we hope you agree that the misinformation surrounding it is harmful to the public debate and the formal legislative process on health care. In other words, news coverage and blog buzz and viral emails on the health care bill should refer to specific, citable sections of what the bill actually says — they must be reality-based.
We believe it is possible for every American to educate him or herself about what H.R. 3200 proposes as a major piece of federal legislation and how it would work in the context of the existing American health care system. More than that, we empower people to share these important facts with their friends and families, and to constructively contact their elected officials with their input. Towards these ends, we’ve put together this debunking of incorrect claims regarding H.R. 3200 by citing and linking to the empirically-verifiable sections of the official bill text. This is not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of everything in H.R. 3200, but rather a focused look at five specific provisions under collective scrutiny. To be sure, there is much more proposed in this bill than can be summarized in this one blog post. For now, then, let’s fight misinformation and look at the facts together:
Lie #1: The Health Care bill would set up government death panels
This lie has been widely circulated over email and in blog posts, recently and most prominently by Sarah Palin, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and others. Their claim is that language in the bill relating to “advance care planning consultations” would set up mandatory meetings in which government “death panels” would force senior citizens and others to sign some sort of early death pact. In reality, the bill language seeks to require Medicare to cover the cost of counseling sessions with doctors on end-of-life issues if a person chooses to have one. Currently, these kinds of sessions aren’t covered by Medicare, and people without extra money often can’t afford to have them.
Read the actual provision on end-of-life counseling in the official bill text >>
Here’s an interview with Republican Sen. John Isakson of Georgia, the lawmaker who has been pushing hardest over the years to get this passed. He calls Palin’s comment “nuts” that her “baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s death panel,” and says the provision is about giving people the authority to decide if they want an end-of-life consultation. “It empowers you to be able to make decisions at a difficult time rather than having the government making them for you.”
Lie #2: The bill would make private health insurance illegal
This falsehood comes from a widely circulated Investor’s Business Daily editorial claiming that a provision on page 16 of the bill would “outlaw individual private coverage.” The portion of the bill they are referencing, Sec. 102 (a), defines “grandfathered health insurance coverage” and reads as follows: “Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law."
Read the provision on grandfathered health insurance in the official bill text >>
… And when you do, scroll down to subsection C, which states that “Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.” In other words, after the bill becomes law, all new health insurance plans would have to be purchased through the Health Insurance Exchange, which, according to a House committee summary, is a “marketplace for individuals and small employers to comparison shop among private and public insurers.” The provision Investor’s Business Daily latched onto in is, in reality, all about increasing choice and competition in the marketplace between
Lie #3: The bill will give free health care to illegal immigrants
A viral email has been going around that claims to be a page-by-page analysis of the bill, but is actually just a bunch of made-up non-sense. The email persists in dozens of intentional misreadings and unfounded, unverified claims, but to knock down just one of them — one of the lines reads, “Pg 50 Section 152 in HC bill – HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise.”
Read Pg 50 Section 152 in the official bill text >>
It states: “Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.”
Now, the only section of the bill that could possibly be interpreted as “free health care” is Subtitle C, the “Individual Affordability Credits” section. The subtitle sets up a system of income-based credits for helping low-income people buy health insurance. At the end of the subtitle, it states clearly, “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.” Going back to the section of the bill that was highlighted in the email, this prohibition on funds for illegal immigrants clearly qualifies under the language, “Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act.” The email’s claim otherwise is demonstrably false. The rest of the email’s wild claims can be similarly disproved by referencing the empirical text of H.R. 3200.
Lie #4: Public money would be used to fund abortions
The same inaccurate email referenced above claims that two sections of the House bill would lead to “govt abortions.” House Minority Leader John Boehner [R, OH-8) has made similar claims. He stated in a National Review op-ed that the health care bill “will require [Americans] to subsidize abortion with their hard-earned tax dollars.” These claims, however, are false. There is nothing in the bill that would override the 1976 Hyde Amendment (full text of which is here in .pdf) prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortions.
Read the two sections highlighted by the email in the official bill text >>
Abortion didn’t actually enter the Health Care debate until Rep. Lois Capps [D, CA-23] won an amendment in the House Energy and Commerce Committee that is designed to block taxpayer money from funding them. The Capps amendment would require that there be at least one health benefit plan providing coverage for abortions and one plan without such coverage in each state. If a public insurance plan did include abortion coverage, there would be a “segregation of funds” between federal money, namely in the form of affordability credits, and the individually paid premiums, which alone would fund abortion services. In summary: as under current federal law, no government funds would be used to pay for abortions under H.R. 3200, and anyone who claims otherwise has incorrect information.
Lie #5: The government will have direct, real-time access to individual bank accounts
This lie has been spread by Rush Limbaugh, Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ), and others. The false claim, as typified in this KFYI News piece, is that “Section 163 of the bill states that the government would be allowed real-time access to a person’s bank records – including direct access to bank accounts for electronic fund transfers.”
Read the section on administrative simplification in the official bill text >>
What this section refers to, as OpenCongress user kbarnard1367 points out, is not “real-time access to a person’s bank records,” but rather, real-time access for health care providers to information relating to a person’s insurance coverage:
"What’s the first thing you give the doctor? Your health insurance card. What do they do with it? Call the insurance company to see if you still have insurance. So instead of a phone call and a 5 minute wait the nice receptionist swipes your card in her computer and sends a message down the internet and gets a near “Real time” response that says yes this person still has insurance with us. Your pharmacy has been doing this for years.
… in other words, this section of the actual bill does not do what Limbaugh and Rep. Shadegg and others claim. They are demonstrably wrong (see above). It is simply a check on the status of an individual’s insurance coverage, one that already happens today and would be required under any possible system built on individual health insurance.
A few lines down, another section of the bill has been targeted as the part that would supposedly provide the government with private financial information.
One line of the section attempt to standardize electronic administrative transactions, such as electronic fund transfers that occur between insurance companies and health care providers for the purpose of administrative simplification. Another line would enable electronics funds transactions to allow “automated reconciliation” of health care costs. This would basically amount to nothing more than an automatic online bill-pay system for people to pay their premiums every month.
There is no language in H.R. 3200 that would make it legal for the government to have “direct, real-time access to individual bank accounts.” The bill even includes basic requirements that all personal data that is collected under the provisions is used in a matter that meets privacy and security laws, and it restricts “inappropriate” uses, “including use of such data in determinations of eligibility (or continued eligibility) in health plans.”
We welcome your questions and comments about the debunking above, as well as your suggested additions and factual clarifications — just send us an email: writeus@opencongress.org. But more importantly, write your Members of Congress and let them know how you feel about H.R. 3200. Join or login to your free “My OpenCongress” profile in order to take full advantage of all the ways the site empowers you to get involved with Congress. For more ways individuals and organizations can use OpenCongress to keep their communities up-to-date with the latest about the issues they care about, visit our friendly how-to guide.
On the bill page for H.R. 3200 you can see more useful resources, including :: official Congressional actions, recent news coverage, highest-rated blog coverage, top-rated user comments, a free bill status widget (or grab a Congress, I’m Watching widget), links to dozens more Hot Bills by issue area, and more. In the right-hand sidebar of the bill page there are built-in tools to read the full official bill text, give a personal vote “aye” or “nay”, write your Representative with your opinion directly from that page, subscribe to bill updates over RSS or email alerts, share that bill over social networking services (e.g. Facebook) and social sharing/bookmarking services (e.g. Digg, Reddit), send us feedback, and more.
OpenCongress is a non-partisian, non-profit public resource website — we encourage you to link back to this post and share what you find here. Thanks for using OpenCongress to help build factual public knowledge about Congress.
Read all blog posts here, or subscribe to our RSS feed to keep up with what’s really happening in Congress.
Get Blog Updates by Email
Want a simple way to stay on top of what's happening in Congress?
Subscribe to this blog!Send Us a Tip
-
I've been watching a lot of...
Submitted by Robert Schwartzman on Dec 9
-
Proposed Bill HR-2674 Prote...
Submitted by Mary on Jun 16
-
Amendment No. 601 to the Om...
Submitted by Winifred on Mar 3
You can submit a tip anonymously, or attributed to your own name and e-mail, whichever you prefer. Read more about submitting a tip.
Recent Posts
- Endless Blockade for the Senate ... January 25, 2013
- One Year Ago We Killed SOPA -- H... January 18, 2013
- Senate Democrats Looking to End ... January 08, 2013
- Welcome the 113th U.S. Congress:... January 03, 2013
- Secretive Conference Committee F... December 20, 2012
Archives
See All ArchivesBlogroll
- A plain blog about politics
- The Baseline Scenario
- Capital Eye
- The Caucus
- CBO Director's Blog
- Congress Matters
- The Corner
- CREW Blog
- Crooks and Liars
- Jamie Dupree
- Election Law Blog
- FDL News Desk
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hot Air
- Irregular Times
- Little Sis
- Naked Capitalism
- The Moderate Voice
- OMB Watch
- Open House Project
- Party Time
- Plum Line
- Political Animal
- Political Wire
- ProPublica
- Real Clear Politics
- RedState
- Secrecy News
- Sunlight Foundation Blog
- Talking Points Memo
- techPresident
- 2chambers
- Unanimous Consent
- The Weekly Standard
Sort By
Comments
Displaying 31-60 of 164 total comments.
“but this is not the place of the government, these are issues to be discussed with your family and your preacher. People do not want there tax money to be spent by the government to tell old people how to starve themselves to death.”
The consultations are VOLUNTARY. And the government is not deciding ANYTHING, they’re not even involved in the conversation—they’re just paying for it once every five years IF YOU WANT IT. The conversation is directly between you and your doctor or whatever professional you choose for the consultation, and the only purpose is to explain the options to you, not to make the decision for you.
If you don’t understand what a living will is, maybe you should find out before commenting on it.
“This bill does in fact propose to pay for people to tell old people how to starve themselves to death, correct?”
Incorrect. Read the bill.
What about those of use who don’t want to pay for an unconstitutionally provided gov’t health insurance program? Is it voluntary for us? I love being “given” the “freedom” of either buying health insurance from the gov’t, buying health insurance AND being taxed to provide gov’t insurance for others or being fined (ooops) taxed for not having health insurance. why do we assume that this bill in any form is what is wanted or needed. Why are we not discussing the constitutionality of it?
I do get very aggravated by the way the hacks change the names of things to fire people up, ie the “end of life counseling”= “DEATH council” it means the same but is very distasteful, just like the “estate tax” = “death tax”, they mean the same but invoke totally different emotions. hopefully with the internet people will wize up to the brain washing and manipulation being done to society at large by the powers that be.
We can can have a civil debate on who’s place it is to discuss such issues with our relatives and if we think it is a role for government,but when the hacks make statements like “death council” it turns the debate on the issue into Bud lite Vs Budweiser “taste great, less filling” tardfest.
OMG!!! WOW, you realy have no idea what that’s about. You need to find out what avance directive and healthcare proxy is.
Please educate me. If I said something that is not accurate I would like to learn were I am misunderstanding this bill.
So, if you know what they are, you would know this is not a death panel. It is putting your wishes on paper. Yes, it is detailed but healthcare workers need to know how you want them to treat you before you want them to stop. Even without this bill it is highly recommend that you have this in place. It is not just for the elderly but for everyone
I have never said anything about a “death Pannel” I said that I do not agree that the government should pay people to council people on their end of life options. That is a matter for your family, your preacher and possibly your lawyer, The government has no business in such affairs.
This bill does in fact propose to pay for people to tell old people how to starve themselves to death, correct?
Please tell me if that statement is not true.
It is not true.
In any case, the Congress has now removed that section from the bill because of people’s silly opposition to it. So now if you WANT to get a consultation about a living will or advance directives from your health care professional you have to pay for it yourself. Happy now?
absolutely, I am thrilled if that has in fact been taken out of the bill(maybe we can make a bill that everyone will support) thats because I feel that is an issue that is none of the governments business. You mentioned “its voluntary” earlier but everything involving medicine (except vaccines for school kids )is voluntary but old people believe doctors are gods and will in most cases “volunteer” to do anything a doctor suggests.
and on the not true part, I posted it verbatim out of the bill, I am glad it is being taken out.
Shame on you open congress
Lie #2: The bill would make private health insurance illegal
This bill will make private insurace as we know it illegal.
Self insurance will be illegal, HSAs will be illegal, health co-ops will be illegal as will high deductible insurance and catastrophic policies. The only insurance policies that will be legal will be the ones that follow the government guidelines.
So maybe it should be said that This bill will make your current private insurance policy illegal unless you live in New York, New Jersey or Minnesota the only states that currently meet the standards of the policies required in this bill. Now check the prices of health insurance in those states they cost two to 3 times as mush as policies in the rest of the country.
It will “change” how private insurance is managed.
yes but if you do not follow the “change” you are breaking the the law and will be punished therefor making it illegal.
And if you look at the definition of “private health insurance” it isn’t what you currently have, it’s a non-public (government run) health insurance option.
Yes, and stealing other people’s property is also illegal. What’s your point?
The reason the rules are being changed is because the rules as they are right now essentially allow insurance companies to steal from you—to charge you for health coverage and then not deliver it. If you paid for a car and then the dealer refused to give it to you I’m sure you’d be outraged. We want to prevent the same thing from happening with health insurance with these regulations.
then lets create a law that says if someone buys insurance the insurance companies can not deny their claims, that can be done with a one page bill.
How far are you going to stretch this before it breaks? Change != illegal.
My current insurance will be illegal. probably your also. It will be against the law to have the policy I currently have. Your rates will at least double because of this, mine will go up five fold or more. All I have is a catastrophic high deductible policy and a life insurance just enough to bury me, if something cost less then 10 grand to fix I have to pay for it my self, it will be against the law to keep my current insurance.
The 1976 Hyde Amendment has already been overridden, The government already gives 300 million a year to Planned Parenthood the largest abortion provider in the world.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/08/13/us-catholic-bishops-healthcare-bill-funds-abortion.html
[The House Commerce and Energy Committee] created a legal fiction, a paper separation between federal funding and abortion: Federal funds will subsidize the public plan, as well as private health plans that include abortion on demand; but anyone who purchases these plans is required to pay a premium out of his or her own pocket (specified in the Act to be at least $1.00 a month) to cover all abortions beyond those eligible for federal funds under the current Hyde amendment. Thus some will claim that federal taxpayer funds do not support abortion under the Act.
" The government already gives 300 million a year to Planned Parenthood "
What does this have to do with the bill?
I was responding to the writer of this article’s argument that he based on the Hyde amendment and then showing how they have worked around it to date and how they are proposing to work around it in this bill.
it was regarding Lie #4
it was regarding Lie #4
Yeah, so all the discussion and arguments about what is in the bill what’s not in the bill and all that, my questions are pretty simple, ANYONE please make it make sense. Don’t justify it by the fact that we do this already in other areas. Just answer me these few questions. 1. How can it be okay that the people who are directly going to benefit from this are not going to be the ones paying into it…,i.e. those who are being taxed to pay for this are the ones who will be hurt the most. They will be paying for other people to receive health care who aren’t paying into it. 2. If in fact it is good enough for the American people then ALL of our ELECTED OFFICIALS will be on this and no other plan correct? Now what am I missing?
@ #1: Do you feel the same about public education?
I love your #2, I think we should force that. A matter of fact, mandatory use of public education as well for all elected officals.
I absolutely feel the same about public education. People with kids should pay for their own kids education. Why should I pay for someone else’s kids education? How do I benefit from that? I am not, nor should I by my government demand, be forced in to false altruism or philanthropy. Maybe if education was a privilege (like it used to be) rather than an expectation it might be taken more seriously. My parents paid for mine until I was able to pick up some of the slack and pay my own way. No grants, no loans just hard work. For the record I also think we need education reform.
An educated populace benefits the entire society: educated workers are more productive, rely on government services less, and demand more goods and services from other sectors of the economy. Say you’ve got a manufacturing job: somebody who received a public education is more likely to buy the thing you make than somebody without that education.
Can you prove that…“Somebody who received a public education is more likely to buy the thing you make than somebody without that education.”?
I won’t argue that an educated populace benefits the entire society just like a fully insured populace benefits society. What I’m saying is it is not my responsibility to pay for anyone else’s education or insurance. I’m sure a healthy populace is good for society too but does that mean I’m responsible for paying for some one else’s gym membership because they can’t afford it? Please respond Avelino, I’m curious as to anyone’s desire, attempt or ability to justify why personal responsibility and accountability shouldn’t apply to individuals.
I will try my best to address this.
I do believe collage is a waist of money for most people that do not go into education, medicine, law, accounting, architecture, engineering or computer science. The rest of the degrees are fluff I see most university system as a pyramid scam in cahoots with government agencies.
But I do believe everyone deserve the option of up to a 12th grade education for free. A republic such as ours depends on an educated populous to operate, if the government is of the people and the people are dumb our government will be dumb, it is too easy for illiterate and uneducated people to be manipulated, they will follow the leader who offers them the most free stuff and will not be smart enough to know the leaded can not deliver,look at the people that support 3200,(that was a joke)
crime is another huge issue ,in 2000 70% of the us prison population had a literacy level below the forth grade level, 19% totally illiterate. If they had received an education statistically more of them would be productive members of society as opposed to a strain on society.
genius knows no class or social structure, some of the brightest minds come from the poorest families, without a basic education their abilities would never be discovered an out nation would loose out on those resources.
It is a competitive world, we are in a fight for depleting food and energy resources with the rest of the world, we can not afford to loose that fight, we must have every advantage we can over the other nations on the planet.
smarter people are healthier on average studies are on going it is still a chicken or the egg debate right now.