Claim V. Fact on Health Care Reform Myths
Debunking some of the most common myths about health care reform.By Christy Harvey, Mic Check Radio
June 16, 2009
(From the Cartoonist Group)
“President Obama took his health care overhaul proposal to one of its more skeptical audiences, telling doctors at the American Medical Association conference in Chicago that the United States is ‘not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women and children.’” [NY Times]
Know Five Things
1. Health Care Reform vs. Socialized Medicine
- MYTH: Health care reform will limit patient choice and lead to socialized medicine. The Republican alternative to President Barack Obama’s health reform efforts -The Patients’ Choice Act-states, “The Federal government would run a health care system-or a public plan option-with the compassion of the IRS, the efficiency of the post office, and the incompetence of Katrina.” The CATO Institute has published a brief asking ‘Does Barack Obama Support Socialized Medicine’ before suggesting that “reasonable people can disagree over whether Obama’s health plan would be good or bad. But to suggest that it is not a step toward socialized medicine is absurd.” [Cato Institute]
- REALITY: Progressive reforms would provide more choice, not less. Under progressive proposals, Americans will have the choice to keep the employer plan they currently have or buy an affordable plan from the national insurance exchange. Individuals and small businesses will be able to obtain coverage through the exchange, which would offer affordable, high-quality, and meaningful coverage. Employers and families would be able to access standardized comparative information on health plans to determine their true cost of coverage, and eligibility for public subsidies and coverage programs. “Compare private coverage options and a public plan and to purchase the policy that would work best for them.” Moreover, to characterize Obama’s health care as “socialized medicine” is itself “absurd.” In contrast to CATO’s rhetoric, socialized health care is “a system of health care delivery in which care is provided as a state-supported service.” As Jeanne Lambrew points out, given Obama’s reliance on private insurers and providers, accusations of socialism are “far from the truth.” “Nonetheless, accusations of socialized medicine will likely continue to be raised about any reform proposal that is not based entirely on letting private insurance companies rule our health care system,” she argues. [Senate Finance Committee Policy Options] [CAP]
2. More Americans Covered vs. Fewer Americans Covered
- MYTH: Americans will lose their existing coverage. In a recent issue health brief, the Heritage Foundation charged, “the creation of a new public plan would result in millions of Americans losing their employment-based coverage.” [Heritage]
- REALITY: Progressive proposals strengthen the employer based system by spreading the risk and cost of insurance. An employer mandate on larger employers will encourage companies to continue providing coverage and will make the process of providing insurance more affordable by spreading the costs of insurance. A majority of large American employers would continue to provide coverage as a competitive benefit, while businesses with the fewest workers and the lowest wages would be exempt from the mandate and offered a new tax credit to purchase health insurance for their employees. [Senate Finance Committee Policy Options]
3. Higher Costs vs. Lower Costs
- MYTH: A new public health plan will only drive-up health care costs and increase premiums for Americans with private insurance. Karen Ignagni, the CEO of American Health Insurance Plans recently argued that “a new public program similar to Medicare would exacerbate cost-shifting, which already adds $1,500, or 10 percent, to the average premium for a family of four.” [NY Times]
- REALITY: A public plan will contain costs, lower premiums, and give Americans a choice of health plans-public and private. A recent analysis of the public option by the Institute for America’s Future, concluded that offering a new public insurance option to Americans who lack coverage would control health care costs and improve quality by providing an important benchmark for private insurance within a reformed health care framework. Universal coverage will reduce cost-shifting by getting everybody covered and contain costs through investment in prevention, management of chronic care, twenty-first century information technology and research on and adoption of effective treatments. [Institute for America’s Future]
4. Saving Money vs. Costing Money
- MYTH: Health care reform won’t save money. In a recent appearance on Fox News Channel, Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard argued that affordable health care reform wouldn’t save money or improve the quality of care. “In other words, we’re going to insure all the uninsured, and they’re going to have better healthcare. In other words, you’re going to get a lot more for less. Now, does anybody who can tie his shoes believe that? I don’t think so! Come on! That’s ridiculous. We’re going to save money. There’s going to be a lot more for you, but it will cost a lot less,” Barnes opined. [Wonk Room]
- REALITY: If everyone had access to affordable health care and life-saving preventive services, the system could better manage chronic diseases, end the cost shift from the uninsured to the insured, and improve efficiency. Uncompensated care for the uninsured currently contributes an average of $1,100 to family health insurance premiums. As Chris Jennings has pointed out, “if people go in and out of the system you can neither prevent that problem nor can you coordinate the disease [management] well if you don’t have coverage.” [CAP Action Fund] [Wonk Room]
5. Saving Jobs vs. Costing Jobs
- MYTH: Employer ‘pay or play’ provisions will cost jobs. The National Review has argued that ‘pay-or-play’-a provision that requires large employers to either offer their employees coverage or pay into a fund that will help finance health insurance for their workers-would have “devastating” consequences “for the lowest paid workers.” “These employers would therefore have no choice but to eliminate these jobs, lest they end up paying more for their workforce than it is worth to the firm.” Conservatives also argue that “instead of bolstering private coverage, ‘pay or play’ would become the excuse for companies to drop their plans and push their employees into public insurance.” [National Review]
- REALITY: Employer mandates have not resulted in employers eliminating jobs. Most large employers subject to a mandate already provide coverage to their workers. In fact, a recent Commonwealth study of working-age adults in Massachusetts-which has instituted an employer mandate-revealed that in the two years since implementation “Uninsurance is at historically low levels, despite the recent economic downturn.” [Urban Institute]
Talk to An Expert
Interested in talking with an expert on this topic or hosting a speaking event? Contact speakers@campusprogress.org.
Social Bookmarking
--------
Comments
Thanks so much for taking the time to write this out. Healthcare reform is so important and there’s so much garbage out there its hard for people to know what is and isn’t true. I found this article helpful as well:
— Zoro - Aug 18, 07:55 PM - #thefactofmyignorance…