OpenCongress Blog

Blog Feed Comments Feed More RSS Feeds

Debunking Health Care Lies (by Reading the Bill)

August 13, 2009 - by Donny Shaw

With 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 both public and private health insurance options, not limiting choice.

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.

Like this post? Stay in touch by following us on Twitter, joining us on Facebook, or by Subscribing with RSS.
 

Comments

Displaying 1-30 of 164 total comments.

davidmoore 08/13/2009 11:24am

OpenCongress Staff

Hi Matt – David with OpenCongress here. We are indeed talking facts and reading the bill regarding the five sections mentioned up top. We don’t purport for this blog post to be a comprehensive overview of everything the bill proposes to do, but we undeniably cite five specific sections of bill text above to counter misinformation. Arguments are important, and it’s important that arguments are factual. We’re talking real details above, hope you will help spread the word.

abaratar 08/13/2009 8:19pm
in reply to bluegrass Aug 13, 2009 11:49am

that can not be done because of the “community rating” and “guaranteed issue” policy requirements. Anyone that could opt for a policy out side of the exchange system to avoid the community rating and guaranteed issue policies would do so (CR an GI policies currently cost 2-3 times as much as regular policies). That would make the exchange a place only for people with existing conditions or people that just got sick, putting only the people that insurance companies loose money on in the exchange, no insurance company would participate in a system that costs them more money then they make. CR and GI policies are the equivalent of buying home owners insurance after your house has burnt down and the insurance company being forced to pay for the fire damages.

mtalexan 08/13/2009 8:00pm
in reply to bluegrass Aug 13, 2009 11:49am

Absolutely. If you look at what invokes the non-compliance tax, Sec.401 amended text 59B(d)(2)(A) (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text?version=ih&nid=t0:ih:1142) it specifically says any QHBP compliant insurance exempts you from the tax. Since that’s defined as different from HIE participating insurance in Sec.121(b) (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text?version=ih&nid=t0:ih:303) there will likely be a very active non-HIE market for QHBP compliant insurance, especially since all one-off/exempt services can only be packaged with a Premium plan in the HIE, while there’s no such limitation for non-HIE QHBP compliant plans.

yoder 08/13/2009 12:19pm

This blog, and more like them, are precisely what this country needs.

abaratar 08/13/2009 8:47pm
in reply to mtalexan Aug 13, 2009 8:00pm

if you look at section 202(d) it defines QHBP compliant insurance as the VA, members of the military, medicare, Medicaid, state employee insurance plans and grandfathered policies.

DanG 08/13/2009 11:41am

In re: Lie #2: The bill would make private health insurance illegal.

What about the fines (ahem… extra taxes) for not carrying ‘acceptable coverage’? While the language doesn’t render being self-insured illegal, you must realize that you are dealing with the population at large, and in the vernacular, any activity that results in a fine/extra payment, is because the activity is verboten/illegal.

This bill not only forces individuals to acquire health insurance, but forces them to be insured to a specific level of care (regardless if they want to pay for that level of coverage, or not) or else they will have to pay the IRS (i.e. the choice is to pay the insurance company for services/coverage that is not wanted, or to pay the IRS).

Anonymous 08/14/2009 3:57pm

With regard to Lie #2 – Insurers losing the right to sell coverage. When the government sets up a taxpayer-subsidized “public option”, private enterprise will not be able to compete, and in short order all business owners will consider the 8% additional payroll tax to be a better investment than providing coverage which costs more than that. The net will be that insurance companies will exit the health insurance business. This is simple economics. For grandfathered plans – Well, natural attrition happens. If they cannot maintain a pool of risk by backfilling attrition eventually they will tell policy holders “sorry, but your grandfathered plan is going away”. Again – indirectly this will lead to single-payer which some in Congress are brazen enough to say openly.

You call them lies, but those of us who watch how politics function can see three moves down this chessboard. It would behoove your blogging credibility if future articles demonstrated less myopia.

bluegrass 08/15/2009 8:22am
in reply to broofener Aug 14, 2009 9:06pm

I don’t see a “Section 432”. Do you mean page 432-440? 432-434 seem to be about the voluntary living will consultations. I don’t see what you object to in the rest of those pages. Feel free to quote directly from the bill what you’re concerned about.

Here is Section 440:

“SEC. 440. HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EXPECTING CHILDREN.

(a) Purpose- The purpose of this section is to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children."

It’s voluntary. They’re not going to storm your house to educate your children.

See, this is why you need to read the bill.

bluegrass 08/13/2009 11:51am
in reply to mattpileggi Aug 13, 2009 10:27am

“With the pretense of talking facts and reading the bill, you avoid and omit certain details that are also facts and also in the bill.”

Like what? Please show us.

Anonymous 08/14/2009 3:19pm

Enough already. The federal government was not established to be the major provider of health care. If the federal government ever controls a major share of the health care market, it will, inevitably, abuse that power. How long do you really think it would be before some bored civil servant (think TSA baggage inspector) advises you that you can’t smoke another cigarette, ride a motorcycle, or own a firearm or you will lose all healthcare benefits? As for the latter, it’s not a violation of the second amendment, just a condition for coverage by a healthcare provider wink, wink. For that matter, what happens to your care should it be discovered our senior population is inadequately ‘diverse’ – and you’re demographic is overrepresented.
Come up with a ‘food stamps’ like program if necessary and leave the 80% of us satisfied with our care and plans alone.

bluegrass 08/15/2009 8:43am
in reply to Anonymous Aug 14, 2009 1:49pm

Refuting lies is not partisan.

abaratar 08/15/2009 12:16pm
in reply to bluegrass Aug 15, 2009 8:42am

this is what frustrates me, you do not like 3200,you do not want 3200, why do you defend 3200? Is it just a habit?

Anonymous 08/13/2009 1:54pm
in reply to mattpileggi Aug 13, 2009 10:27am

Pro-reform people have been trying to talk details for months, but the anti- folk don’t want to listen. They’d rather disrupt the conversation and spread propaganda.

yoder 08/13/2009 12:15pm
in reply to mattpileggi Aug 13, 2009 10:27am

@mattpileggi
“being turned into the typical democrat vs republican, liberal vs conservative, bull crap vs bull sh** argument that does nobody any good.”

That is precisely what this blog did NOT do.

Anonymous 08/15/2009 8:51am

OH!
By the way- lab on a chip technology along with the new artificial antibody tech that manufactures antibodies for any antigen will presently reduce the cost of laboratory analysis to pennies and seconds.
You will be able to do your own full spectrum testing at home with one drop of blood for every disease known to man in seconds at home for pennies.

Government never solved a problem. Innovation does that.
Government only creates expensive problems. But, like hugo chavez, providing a cannibal feast of the productive segment of society for the free lunch of the masses, they are able to claim gang rape is democracy.
Medicare just got a big reprieve.

yoder 08/15/2009 8:45am
in reply to Anonymous Aug 14, 2009 3:19pm

You are correct. Enough already. Federal government was not created to get in people’s bedrooms and say who can and cannot get married. Federal government was not created to lie to the people in order to go to war over oil contracts and to finance civilian contractors and mercenaries. Federal government was not created to become a welfare teat for every major multinational corporation in the world.

Enough.

americanmuscle 08/15/2009 9:02am

I could comment on all of the so called lies in this blog and smash them all to pieces but for now I will just concern myself with “lie #4”. No where does it explicitly say what benefits will be provide outside of saying “healthcare”. A panel or board will be set up at a later date after the bill is passed to determine what is covered. This is where they will slip abortions into the mix. As far as I am concerned this Donny Shaw is the misinformed. Since when has the government been able to segregate money. They are always robbing Peter to pay Paul.

DrMcNugget 08/13/2009 1:05pm

To Donny Hall & the rest of OpenCongress,
I intend only to echo the user “yoder”: this is what the country and the debate need. I believe very much in the principle of free speech, but I believe even more strongly in the principle of free speech based on factual information. I enjoy debate on big issues from both sides of the aisle when it is intelligent and substantive; needless to say, I have been pulling my hair out lately watching people cite blatantly false information and then watching the media report their opinions with straight faces; such journalism is irresponsible at best. It doesn’t MATTER what Palin, Grassley, and Coburn are telling us about the health care proposals if their claims are outright lies and scare tactics. I wish the “mainstream media” would call these figures out for what they are: liars.
Thank you, all, for using facts to support, well, the facts. Our nation is indebted to you for this service.

tyofwa 08/14/2009 7:45pm
in reply to donnyshaw Aug 14, 2009 5:35pm

I did read it, and it is factually accurate. As I and the article states below, the “grandfathered” plans are disallowed from issuing new policies after the bill becomes law, unless it “qualifies” per the new requirements. No plans on the market would qualify; thus the enrollment count can only decrease. They will decrease to a tipping point of insolvency and then Americans can only choose the government “subsidized” option, or the more expensive ones industry provides which “qualify”.

Our government knows exactly what they are doing, and this is what they seek. It may represent the wishes of some of America (17% per your site), but it is a power grab and unconstitutional. Responsible Americans have every right to stand up and defend their rights from this very dangerous bill.

abaratar 08/13/2009 6:52pm

LIE #5
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text?version=ih&nid=t0:ih:518 the secratery can ask you for your open congress password if so desired, it is not determined what access to you finances they will have yet it is to be “determined by the secretary”

“by the secretary” is in the bill 175 times(give or take one or two I counted fast, would someone with better attention to detail please do a recount http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf)

As in “As defined by the Secratery”, “to be determined by the secratery”, “Specified by the secratery”, “coverage may be rescinded under the guidance
issued by the Secretary” every part of this bill is fluid and be changed at anytime “by the Secretary” without the consent of congress the senate, the president (well he could fire the secratery) or the voters, this bill is a blank check, a contract wrote in pencil that can be changed at any time.

abaratar 08/13/2009 4:52pm

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.

bluegrass 08/15/2009 8:42am
in reply to Anonymous Aug 14, 2009 12:26pm

HR 676 is only 28 pages and results in the simplest and cheapest health care system possible. Why don’t you tell your legislators to vote for that?

willofgod 08/14/2009 8:07am
in reply to Anonymous Aug 14, 2009 6:27am

The current insurance landscape is FAR from a free market.

Anonymous 08/14/2009 9:15am

@abaratar Every US taxpayer is on the hook when you (or someone like you) crash your car and stick us with a $600,000 unpaid medical bill because you chose not to pay for health insurance. Thanks! I sure wish I could choose to not pay for your emergency care.

pinky 08/15/2009 10:10am

I’m with Bluegrass. I don’t support this bill because I support HR676. Single Payer Universal Health Care for ALL! Everybody in, nobody out.

abaratar 08/15/2009 12:09pm
in reply to bluegrass Aug 15, 2009 8:37am

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.

americanmuscle 08/15/2009 9:19am

Why don’t you check out ehealthinsurance.com? I just went there put in myself, a tobacco user, my wife, and three children. The quotes were from $220 to $390 in Washington state. Not too bad. I would have to turn off my cable, internet and trade in my $300 a month SUV, but it would be worth it to insure my family. I also just had a quote done for myself as a tobacco user and the quotes were $64 to $107 a month. I don’t know about you but I spend about that in chewing tobacco each month. I think that is very affordable. Our government is lying to us.

I posted this on the HR3200 page too.

donnyshaw 08/14/2009 5:35pm
in reply to Anonymous Aug 14, 2009 3:57pm

OpenCongress Staff

You should read the IBD editorial that started this whole things about the bill making private insurance illegal. They are not making the same argument that you are making. They actually misread the bill and then published their incorrect reading, which got picked up and spread widely.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854

As I explained above, all they had to do was read a few paragraphs further down in the bill to realize that their initial interpretation was wrong. It was irresponsible of them, that’s why I am debunking it.

paulaciero123 08/14/2009 1:06pm
in reply to abaratar Aug 14, 2009 11:47am

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

bluegrass 08/15/2009 8:28am
in reply to abaratar Aug 13, 2009 8:59pm

Incorrect.


OpenCongress is a free and open-source project of the Participatory Politics Foundation, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization with a mission to increase civic engagement. The non-profit Sunlight Foundation is the Founding and Primary Supporter of OpenCongress.