The 5 Most Outrageous Health Care Claims of the Week

Depending on which side you’re listening to during this phase of the health care debate, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is either a deficit-slashing, job-creating wonder or a deficit busting, job-killing disaster. It’s easy to get confused, especially when lawmakers are throwing around numbers that don’t exactly depict reality. The biggest offenders this week were Republicans, mostly because they were doing most of the talking building up to their symbolic repeal of the ACA. Here’s a look behind this week’s claims.

1. According to House Republicans, the ACA will cause 1.6 million jobs to be lost.

This figure comes from a study conducted by the National Federal of Independent Business, a lobbying group. The problem with this 1.6 million figure is that it comes from analyzing a health reform proposal completely different than the ACA. The NFIB report came out in January 2009, before the ACA was written, and included a mandate that all employers provide insurance. In reality, the ACA exempts employers with fewer than 50 employees and is expected to add hundreds of thousands of jobs to the market as the health services sector expands.

2. According to House Republicans, the ACA will destroy 650,000 jobs.

This alternate figure originated in a report from the Congressional Budget Office that estimated 650,000 Americans may work less or retire early if they’re able to buy health insurance independently and don’t have to depend on their employers for coverage. (The ACA is expected to lower premiums in the individual market.) This is not the same as employers eliminating jobs because of new regulations created by the law.

3. According to House Republicans, the Administration’s own actuary for Medicare and Medicaid says the ACA will dramatically increase, not decrease, spending on health care.

Richard Foster, the actuary, has said overall health care spending will increase because of the ACA, but this is because more people will have health insurance and will therefore seek out care. The increase is not, as Republicans imply, because the ACA will balloon prices.

4. According to House Republicans, the ACA will cost $2.6 trillion and add $701 billion to the federal deficit.

This estimate comes from a report generated by House Republicans and is in direct conflict with estimates from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which estimates the ACA will actually cut the deficit. The CBO says repealing the law will increase the deficit by $230 billion. It is true, however, that this estimate is based on future actions that may not come to fruition – like big cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates. Still, the CBO has long been considered the objective bean counter in Washington and to selectively discount its estimates doesn’t lend much credibility to Republican claims. (For the record, I agree with Republicans that some programs in the ACA are not as fiscally sound as Democrats claim. The CLASS Act is a prime example.)

5. According to the Obama Administration, as many as 129 million Americans have pre-existing conditions and could be denied health insurance coverage without the Affordable Care Act.

It’s true that lots of people have health issues ranging from cancer to back pain. And it’s true that many people with insurance already don’t grasp how vulnerable they could be if they suddenly lost their coverage. Yet, the Administration says the highest rates of pre-existing conditions are among people with job-sponsored coverage. For people who work for larger companies – particularly those that span across states – pre-existing conditions play no role in access to insurance or pricing. In other words, it’s basically an impossibility that, absent health reform, more than 100 million Americans would lack affordable insurance options. As of November – and this number is undoubtedly higher now – just 8,000 uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions had gotten new coverage because of health reform in so-called “high risk pools.”

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • 53_3

    I’ve been taking advantage of the benefits of HCR, and to be honest, other than number 5, which you’ve conspicuously added in an attempt at false equivalency, none of it has anything to do with the people who will be using it!
    .
    Maybe a word about death panels in here Kate, would be a more accurate depiction of how the HCR debate is
    really playing…

  • perrywhite1

    The biggest offenders this week were Republicans, mostly because they were doing most of the talking building up to their symbolic repeal of the ACA.
    ,
    That should read “The biggest offenders this week and every week are Republicans, mostly because they’ve been demonizing ACA and ginning up gigantic, terrifying lies about it for two years.”

  • paulejb

    perrywhite1,

    “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Nancy Pelosi.

    Well, they passed the bill, we are finding out what is in it and the administration has already issued 222 waivers to parts of Obamacare for unions and businesses.

    Not an auspicious start, is it, Perry?

  • allthingsinaname

    The only thing outrageous about #5 is that if we are in the group of 129 million and should we loose our job, and we need continued care, that we will be with out it. The point is made that we could be faced with a difficult situation that even if we could afford it, we couldn’t get the coverage.
    .
    The claim wasn’t that all 129 million of us would need it, but any one of us could need it.
    .
    Let us keep it in perspective please.

  • acvmd

    A little off topic, but I wanted to see if anyone had knowledge (I keep up with the posts, but not always with all the comments) – are there plans for an android app or mobile version that would let us keep up with the time blogs? I’ve seen popups for the iphone, but what about the rest of us?

  • diecash1

    “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Nancy Pelosi.

    How exactly do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you continually spout right-wing dogma? You realize, of course, that you’ve taken the quote out of context, yes? Probably not since you’ve pulled this same act multiple times here. That puts you dangerously close to disingenuous troll territory. Perhaps you could try taking an honest position next time.

  • diecash1

    Last I checked, you could access the Swampland blog from a mobile device but there is no access to the comments. There are some browsers for mobile devices that allow you to receive the standard web page versus the mobile version and that should allow you to read & view comments.

  • bobell

    Kate — Thanks for an “objective” report that’s a reasonably forthright description of what’s actually happening. I know there’s lots of nuance behind many of these issues, but I think you’ve mostly captured the essence, although I agree with allthings that you’ve misfired slightly on No. 5.
    .
    The Republicans have learned that the reality they invent is so much better for them than the reality that’s actually out there. Keep calling them on it.

  • allthingsinaname

    Lets look at it another way; why is anyone in a high risk pool? if there are 129 million of us with preexisting conditions and we are not in a high risk pool why is that the few are? When the ACA is fully implemented it is my understanding that the High Risk Pool ends. You can correct me if I am wrong.

  • allthingsinaname

    Well Kate? Am I right or wrong?

  • Mekhong Kurt

    Perhaps you could provide some specifics? And I’m *not* being catty — as a nearly-60-year-old American living abroad, HCR may well affect some pending decisions I need to make about where I live, what, if any, additional coverage I may need, and so on.

  • Mekhong Kurt

    Weel said, and demonstrably true by simply checking the Congressional Record.

  • Mekhong Kurt

    Although the Republicans won the gold hands down over the past two years for “Most consistently Misrepresenting reality,” the Democrats haven’t been entirely as pure as the newly-driven snow. Therefore, I’m not sure *whose figures* to trust.

    I’m one of those less than happy with the HCR legislation as it ultimately passed, but that doesn’t mean I’m *opposed* to it, nor that I want the status quo to continue unabated — heaven forbid. The republicans keep talking about “the people” don’t want HCR. Well, I’m a “the people,” and *I* darned sure want it. My problem with “Obamacare” is that it doesn’t go far enough — and there are a number of us who feel that way, which is a far cry from wanting to toss the entire program out the window — as the Republicans imply, sometimes even openly insist, it does.

    My two biggest disappointments in Obamacare are that it doesn’t throw open competition across state lines, nor does it address runaway helathcare costs. The first seems easily doable, unless someone makes it a states’ rights versus federal rights issue. As for the second issue — I simply don’t know whether this is even appraochable in any logical way or not, much less wether these costs can be reined in. I don’t want to see anyone in the healthcare industry driven bankrupt, but neither am I eager for tghem to bankrupt *me.*

    As for the tired issue of “deatgh panels,” why is it so hard for those who routinely spout that as a reason to oppose Obamacare to understand that *”death panels* — if that’s what one insists on calling them — ALREADY exist???* Don’t they realize that people who are basically bureaucrats, just in the private sector instead of on the public payroll, *already* routinely deny coverage in the first place and pay-outs for those already covered??? Further, the proposal for government review panels included specifric provisions to avoid the very thing the death-panel crowd harps about. (And yes, I read the proposals.)

    Well, all that’s inb “never-mind land,” I suppose, as I fully expect the *next* two years to be a worse version of the past two years, now that the republicans have a substantial majority in the House and a considerably strengthened minority in the Senate.

    Let the “NO’S!!!” roll on. . . .

  • http://milascurtains.wordpress.com milascurtains

    paulejb – so, did You read?
    And what did You find out Yourself?
    Without help from faux News ?

  • troubador222

    Something that gets missed in the whole debate is the fact that a lot of uninsured people use emergency rooms as their primary care. In working class areas that can be a large number of the people hospitals see. Most hospitals are required by law to provide this care and it is expensive. The cost then gets transferred to those of us with insurance and people like me are the ones paying for it. The really great lie to me seems to be that just like with their stance on taxes, the Republicans are dead set to keep the costs highest for the middle class.

  • Ivy_B

    The problem with the “across state lines” is that it will benefit the insurance companies and a state or two rather than the people. A state could remove all requirements and regulations and then the companies would all move there. Note the number of corporations that are incorporated in Delaware because it has almost no regulations on corporations.
    .
    Read an example of another industry moving operations to one of the Dakotas because the state had removed all regulations in order to get the business. Can’t remember the specific example, but in the case of insurance, different states have insurance commissioners with a lot of power, others with no power. Guess where the insurance companies would rush to if they could be headquartered in name in a state that didn’t require them to provide any minimum coverage, for example.

  • paulejb

    diecash1,

    Quoting Nancy Pelosi is spouting “right wing dogma?” You have an odd definition of “right wing dogma.

    And Nancy Pelosi’s statement is still idiotic in any context that you like. It’s right up there on the scale of idiocy as “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”

  • paulejb

    milascurtains,

    So far I have learned that the Obama administration has issued 222 waivers of ObamaCare regulations to unions and businesses. Hardly an auspicious start.

  • diecash1

    And Nancy Pelosi’s statement is still idiotic in any context that you like

    Uh, no it’s not. Perhaps it’s your understanding that is the problem. Pelosi was referring to the tremendous amount of lies, hatred and vitriol being spread by the many reprobates on the right during the HC debate. You portraying it as something else is right-wing dogma.

  • 53_3

    The first is that premiums havn’t skyrocked. I pay more for coverage this year than last, but they have been going up for years at about the same rate – 10 to 15%.
    .
    Preexisting conditions is an issue of you don’t have a job, lost your insurance (Basic Health was completely ended here in Washington), that hasn’t trickled down yet.
    .
    I added my two sons, who have low paying jobs and no insurance, to my plan. This helped them greatly.
    .
    There are rises in copays, but this is also normal, but the Donut (don’t even think of laughing! I spent the last half of last year in it and with everthing else, ran up $4520 in medical bills) is shrinking.
    .
    No copays for physicals.
    .
    On the other hand, let me ask you this, and I’m not being catty either?
    .
    What have they proposed? BAU?

  • 53_3

    It’s too bad that more people haven’t noticed ths…

  • diecash1

    Good points Ivy. The example you were searching for was when Citigroup moved its HQ to South Dakota in exchange for being allowed to rewrite SD’s banking laws. Delaware and SD have no usury limits and that is one of the reasons why corporations flock there.
    ..
    As for insurance being sold across state lines, it’s a canard. If one buys HC insurance in another state and is wrongly discriminated against, where does that person turn to for recourse? The insurance commissioner in their own state? No jurisdiction, no help. The insurance commissioner in the state where the policy originated? Not a citizen of that state, no help there either. If HC policies are to be sold across state lines, there must be Federal oversight of such transactions. Without that, it’s a license to steal for HC companies not to mention all the caterwauling by those on the right if the Federal government was expanded to provide the necessary oversight.

  • paulejb

    diecash1,

    Gallant try, diecash, but that dog won’t hunt. Nancy Pelosi was just trying to tell us to trust her because she is just so much smarter than we are. She wanted the public to by a pig in a poke since she knew that if they found out what was really in the bill they would despise it even more than they did.

  • diecash1

    As I mentioned, facts seem to mean nothing to you because you are entranced by the dogma of the right.
    ..
    Carry on.

  • 53_3

    I would add that there are other benefits coming down the pipeline.

  • paulejb

    diecash1,

    Simply repeating bogus charges ad nauseum is not a recognized debate tactic. You will have to do better.

  • diecash1

    Simply repeating bogus charges ad nauseum is not a recognized debate tactic.

    Which is precisely what you’ve done a la the Pelosi remark.
    ..
    In my estimation, you are of closed mind and border on being an unrepentant troll. It’s a waste of my time to attempt to disabuse you of your wrong-headed notions under those circumstances. When you care to open your mind to the facts, we can try it again.

  • troubador222

    It is anecdotal, but a close relative of mine works at a hospital in just such an area and she estimates that up to 70% of the traffic their emergency room sees are uninsured people coming in for treatment that should be being done by primary care doctors.

  • paulejb

    diecash1,

    What? Quoting liberal’s statements indicates closed mindedness. Now that I think about it, there might be something to that, diecash. I will try to avoid it in the future, but no guarantees.

    You have been doing little to disabuse me of any ideas. Your remarks just seem so repetitious.

  • perrywhite1

    Diecash, since the Pelosi smear is practically a mantra among our usual trolls, I assume this paulejb person is one of them under a different name. And since I also assume they are paid to be here, he/she/it is probably making money arguing with you.
    .
    I don’t see any point in reading his posts, and don’t.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    The problem with allowing insurance purchases across state lines is that every state has their own health insurance regulations–some stronger than others. If we were “permitted” to purchase insurance state lines, all of the insurance companies would simply hold up in the those with the most lax regulations. A similar thing happened when the credit card industry was deregulated. Many states have caps on the amount of interest a card company can charge, but with deregulation, the cared companies just do business out of states that don’t have those caps and then the caps can not be enforced. So the only way purchasing health insurance across state lines would work is if the federal government set up regulations that were as tough or tougher than the strictest state’s laws. And we all know how much Republicans would fight something like that.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    That is an issue the Republicans either don’t care about or would state with impunity to be a falsehood. But you are right, I’ve done it. And my son uses the emergency room more often than not. He is disabled, he is on medicare and medicaid and he has been unable to find a doctor willing to accept the medicaid portion, so he uses the emergency room.

  • paulejb

    perrywhite1,

    Here you go, Perry. Watch and learn.

  • diecash1

    @perrywhite — I agree. I thought that I would make an honest effort to determine if he was a troll or someone seeking debate and you can see the results for yourself: Close-minded, dogma-spewing troll. As I said above, it’s a waste of time to discuss anything with this jacka$$.

  • perrywhite1

    I do appreciate you exposing the Fox News sock-puppet for what he is — you are certainly a better man than I for going to all the trouble!

  • paulejb

    diecash & perrywhite,

    You two look remarkably foolish with your comments when proof of what I said is right above your remarks. Are you two working off a script and ignoring everything around you?

  • Mekhong Kurt

    @53_3, thanks for your response — I appreciate it.

    Glad to hear you’ve benefitted some from HCR.

    I guess I missed some stuff, living abroad and what all, though I do try to keep up with the news here. (I’m in the US visiting now.) Anyway, the reference to “BAU” goes right over my head. I thought about it awhile, trying to figure aout the acronym, but all that popped into my mind were silly possibilities — “Brand All Unionists,” “Ban all UnAmericans,” and crap like that! Or maybe “Buy American Unicorns,” for all I know!!! ;^)

    Again, thanks for the speedy reply –

    Mekhong Kurt
    Thailand ‘n Texas . . .

  • Mekhong Kurt

    The three comments I’ve gotten all point out obvious points I simply sailed right past, which I certainly shouldn’t have done, since I was aware of them before posting my original comment. Thanks to all three of you who responded, giving me a needed whack up aside my sometimes thick skull!

    Ofm course, one problem with federal oversight is that there are a substantial number of Ame4ricans who believe — as is their right — that the federal government ought not to intervene in what they (said Americans, that is) feel are the business of the individual states, not Washington. And that preswents a considerable roadblock to federal supervision of insurance sales across state lines, though I personally would be supportive of restrained, but strong when necessary, federal supervision. Perhaps a minimum fedral standard could be established, with the states free to impose stricter rules if they wished — though even that likely would stir fires of resistance in some quarters (and not just in the former Confedracy, either).

  • diecash1

    that preswents a considerable roadblock to federal supervision of insurance sales across state lines

    Buying insurance across state lines could reasonably be construed as interstate commerce and subject to Federal oversight.

    Perhaps a minimum fedral standard could be established, with the states free to impose stricter rules if they wished

    That’s often how it is done and that’s what I think would, or perhaps should, happen here.

    though even that likely would stir fires of resistance in some quarters

    Yep, no doubt about that whatsoever.

  • kbanginmotown

    My Verizon LG ENV3 gets me to the posts, but not the comments.

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    Kate, there seems to be a disconnect between what the Obama administration’s claim and your interpretation. From what I read, the Obama administration seems to be saying that 129 million people in the US could, from a variety of other factors, end up in a situation where their coverage is denied – not that it has been denied which seems to be the claim you’re responding to. While I don’t deny that this may seem a bit of a bloated claim (it probably is more like 129 million individuals have the conditions that would, under certain conditions, result in their individual insurance getting denied, but a significantly smaller percentage would actually get their coverage denied in their lifetime), I don’t think that this makes it technically false or a “lie” the way the 4 Republican ones are. It sounds more like saying the converse of “171 million of you could not ever be denied based upon pre-existing conditions based upon the structure of your individual plans for any illness you could get today”

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    By the way, all 4 of the Republican claims, you point out the source and explicitly detail that they are taking numbers and using the completely out of context. In the Obama administration case, you don’t even mention where he gets the number. Why?

  • 53_3

    Business As Usual. Sorry.
    .
    I’m also not too well informed about HCR, but am compensating by relaying what I’ve had to learn.

  • apr2563

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/dick-cheneys-heart-device-was-developed_b_811778.html
    .
    For those of you who want government out of the healthcare business:
    .

    One reason former Vice President Dick Cheney is still alive is because of the ingenious left ventricular assist device (LVAD) heart pump —
    .
    Suffice to say, the tea party Republicans shouldn’t approve of such technology because the LVAD device was developed by the National Institutes of Health using taxpayer money — ostensibly redistributed from regular Americans and into Dick Cheney’s chest cavity. Put another way: Dick Cheney is alive today because of wealth redistribution, socialized medicine and government-run health care.

    You may or may not recall a study conducted before the health care reform law was passed by the office of Rep. Anthony Weiner. At the time, 55 Republican members of Congress were enrolled in Medicare, including Senators McCain, McConnell, Kyl, Shelby, Lugar, Inhofe and Grassley. All of whom were opposed to the public option and health care reform.

    On the House side, Rep. Weiner’s list includes Peter King, Phil Gingrey, wingnut Virginia Foxx and the godfather of the tea party movement Ron Paul. Seriously, Ron Paul! All 55 members are accepting a form of the public option. Government-run health care. Socialized medicine.

  • shepherdwong

    I do appreciate you exposing the Fox News sock-puppet for what he is…”
    .
    The adolescent-level, disingenuous, non-sequitur Democrat slam always does it for me.
    .
    You’re absolutely right, Parry. You’ll enjoy this Rick Perlstein quote:

    When one side breaks the social contract, and the other side makes a virtue of never calling them out on it, the liar always wins. When it becomes “uncivil” to call out liars, lying becomes free.

    Now I think I’ll go over and share it with Joe. He seems to think that the problem is limited to Glenn Beck, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol and Peter Wehner, rather than an entire political party telling a constant stream of outrageous lies.

  • shepherdwong

    Can’t post the link to the Perlstein quote (for some reason) but you can get to it via this Digby post:
    .
    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/big-lie-lie.html

  • troubador222

    And Cheney may end up with a transplant on his government issued insurance. He can get one where the people in Arizona cannot.

  • paulejb

    shepherdwong,

    The problem that you people have is that you can’t keep up, so you spin your little tales as a substitute for debate. That is why I always remain two steps ahead of you.

  • liberalmeltdown

    You got a lot of balls talking about the most outrageous claims considering what the left did last week with the Tucson shooting.
    .
    Outrageous my @SS. You are more than outrageous; you are disgusting.

  • liberalmeltdown

    Nobody gets paid to post on a blog. Unless you democrats know something? Patrick S doesn’t get paid, yet he is all over these boards. Give me a break.

blog comments powered by Disqus