03/20/2010 12:23:58 PM EST

Progressive Propoganda

posted by publius

Let me open the same way R.J. did on Thursday's show. 

I'm a supporter of the public option.  I don't know if I would go all the way to single payer, but I would be open to a conversation about that.  The way Democrats have handled the health care debate enrages me.  We should keep looking into the agreements that Obama and the Democrats made with industry to get the bill passed.  We should hold their feet to the fire. 

I love Cenk and Jane for fighting to the end.  I love Kucinich for holding out for as long as he did. 

I'm pissed about all this stuff just like you.  We didn't get everything we wanted.  But I think a lot of people are missing the historic significance of what is about to happen.  We're going to get a universal health care system.  Almost nothing has been changed from Obama's campaign plan.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook

With that in mind I want to shoot down some of the lies Jane Hamsher is spreading about the health care bill.  Jane in italics, me in bold.

Myth
1. This is a universal health care bill.

Truth:
The bill is neither universal health care nor universal health insurance.

Per the CBO:

    * Total uninsured in 2019 with no bill: 54 million
    * Total uninsured in 2019 with Senate bill: 24 million (44%)

We move from a system that covers 83% of non-elderly Americans to a system that covers 95% of these Americans.  She uses the raw number of 24 million (it looks like 23 million to me in the CBO report), but does not take into account the fact that the population is growing.  50 million today represents about 17% of the population.  23 million in 2019 represents 5% of the population.

Myth
2. Insurance companies hate this bill

Truth
This bill is almost identical to the plan written by AHIP, the insurance company trade association, in 2009.

The original Senate Finance Committee bill was authored by a former Wellpoint VP. Since Congress released the first of its health care bills on October 30, 2009, health care stocks have risen 28.35%.

The insurance industry is in a death spiral and they know it.  They are basically coming to the American people and saying "please set some rules and regulate us because we can't go on like this."  AHIP's plan in 2009 was nearly identical to President Obama's campaign plan.

Myth
3. The bill will significantly bring down insurance premiums for most Americans.

Truth
The bill will not bring down premiums significantly, and certainly not the $2,500/year that the President promised.

Annual premiums in 2016, status quo / with bill:

Small group market, single: $7,800 / $7,800

Small group market, family: $19,300 / $19,200

Large Group market, single: $7,400 / $7,300

Large group market, family: $21,100 / $21,300

Individual market, single: $5,500 / $5,800*

Individual market, family: $13,100 / $15,200*

The CBO takes into account the fact that with the subidies and everything else people will purchase more insurance under the bill than before.  However Jane chooses not to use this part of the analysis.  These average premium numbers are cherry-picked from early the end of the report and do not say anything about the amount of coverage purchased.

Right up front in the report is a nice table that tells you how much people will save on the given amount of insurance:

7 to 10% - Nongroup market
1 to 4% - Small group market
Negligible - Large group market

And this is before account for the subsidies.

For the average person receiving subsidies in the non-group market the average premium paid would be 56 to 59% lower.

Myth
4. The bill will make health care affordable for middle class Americans.

Truth
The bill will impose a financial hardship on middle class Americans who will be forced to buy a product that they can’t afford to use.

A family of four making $66,370 will be forced to pay $5,243 per year for insurance. After basic necessities, this leaves them with $8,307 in discretionary income — out of which they would have to cover clothing, credit card and other debt, child care and education costs, in addition to $5,882 in annual out-of-pocket medical expenses for which families will be responsible.

Currently that family is paying $9,047 for their policy. 

Myth
5. This plan is similar to the Massachusetts plan, which makes health care affordable.

Truth
Many Massachusetts residents forgo health care because they can’t afford it.

A 2009 study by the state of Massachusetts found that:

    * 21% of residents forgo medical treatment because they can’t afford it, including 12% of children
    * 18% have health insurance but can’t afford to use it

How does this compare with other states?  More than half of Americans say they skimped on health care because of cost in 2009. 

Myth
6. This bill provide health care to 31 million people who are currently uninsured.

Truth
This bill will mandate that millions of people who are currently uninsured must purchase insurance from private companies, or the IRS will collect up to 2% of their annual income in penalties. Some will be assisted with government subsidies.

The "Truth" doesn't rebuke the "Myth" here at all.  They are both completely true.

I will have to stop here for now.  The most frustrating part of all of this is that I know there won't be a moment when I can point and say "see the health care bill is working!"

< I can't wait to hear Cenk's take on his UK Media Talk | On the Local, March 20th 2010 >
 Display:
Progressive Propoganda | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden)
misplaced post (none / 0)
This comment should have been put into the existing thread on the subject.  I may delete it and paste it into there.

http://www.theyoungturks.co m/story/2010/3/19/1684/1725 8

David

by yturks on 03/20/2010 01:20:20 PM EST

Fair point, but if/until you delete anything (none / 0)

let me repost my comment from that thread:

Yesterday after the show I briefly spoke to RJ and he said that even though he's in favor of passing the bill, Hamsher is 100% correct and that her list makes a lot of great points.

So if her list is good enough for a healthcare consultant (who's also in favor of passing the bill), it's good enough for me. As for wanting more detail, that's what the links for all 18 points are for.

 

by Tom Hanc on 03/20/2010 03:25:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Jane (none / 0)

I felt this should have it's own thread.

Tom, I've read all of the CBO reports front to back.  They are fairly short, and have some nice charts.  I'm telling you that Hamsher is cherry-picking numbers from those reports to mislead people. 

Now, she's taking the very best numbers to make her case.  But somebody has to make the opposite case. 

by publius on 03/21/2010 12:56:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
On second thought (none / 0)
Go ahead and delete this thread.  It's obvious nobody cares anyway.

by publius on 03/21/2010 01:15:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I care (none / 0)

I found the Hamsher piece persuasive. I was against the current proposal when I read it, though. I am aware she might just be playing into my bias so I was interested in your response. Maybe my bias is still coloring my judgment but, while your response makes interesting points, I don't think you made a compelling argument against Hamsher. Maybe you can "talk me down," if you care to.

1. A move from covering 83% to 95% is an improvement but is it worth the cost of giving the industry more power by compelling, unconstitutionally in my opinion, individuals to by insurance when we will still be left with 24 million uninsured? Regardless of what percentage it represents, 24 million is a lot of people, particularly since a single payer system would leave no one uncovered and, because it would probably be constitutional, would not be another example of an American government of men, not laws.

2. I don't see how your response to this item contradicts Hamsher's point. She is saying the industry actually proposed and likes the plan. Doesn't the notion that the industry is in a death spiral, a new idea to me, just explain why the industry likes the plan? If the industry is in a death spiral, we might be better off passing no law at all. When the industry crashes and burns, we will have what Obama claimed was missing if we were going to institute a single payer system: a situation where we are starting from scratch.

3. Except for the people receiving subsidies, the savings you indicate will result do not strike me as dramatic, again raising the question of whether passing the plan is worth the downside. The relevance of the savings for the subsidized group seems questionable. Aren't they going to save money mostly because their premiums are subsidized? In other words, does this figure represent an actual reduction of premiums or just the fact that the government will pay a portion of the premiums?

4. This may be your strongest point but I couldn't find the source of your figure. The link you provided is to a health reform subisidy calculator.

5. There is a difference between people in Massachusetts and other states: in other states they are not forced to buy insurance they cannot afford to use. 

6. I simply disagree with your point. Forcing someone to buy something is not providing it to them. 

by Corpusless on 03/21/2010 04:30:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Reply (none / 0)

1.  You go from a situation in which 1/5 of the population isn't covered by insurance to a system where 1/20th of the population isn't covered.  That seems pretty good to me.

The constitutionality argument I very little  sympathy for.  It isn't that you're making it illegal to not own health insurance.  Nobody is going to put you in handcuffs and lock you away.  You're simply taxing people differently based on whether they purchase insurance or not. 

2.  Here is Krugman's description of the death spiral.  Basically, as insurance premiums increase young healthy individuals drop out and decide to risk it without insurance.  This means the pool of people who still do own insurance are on average sicker and therefore more expensive so the insurance company must raise premiums again.  When that happens more people will decide to forgo insurance making the risk pool even costlier forcing another increase in premiums.  This cycle feeds on itself until premiums are so high that very few people purchase insurance.  This is why the individual (non-group) market for insurance is practically non-existent. 

The plan was proposed by liberal economists and adopted by all of the Democratic presidential candidates during the primaries.

3.   I don't feel like getting into this.  Follow Hamsher's link to the CBO on premiums.  This is an analysis of the Senate bill.

4.   Go to that calculator and plug in the income that Hamsher uses.  You could probably use many other sources to find out how much a family of four pays for insurance on average.  Do you doubt that it isn't above $6,000 per year?  Most families are "forced" to purchase insurance currently either through their employer or for the simple reason that they can not afford to get sick if they don't have insurance. 

5.  The question isn't whether MA is perfect, but is it better than the rest of the United States. 

6.  You're right.  It's not.  But in my opinion it is a needed reform in the way the system works if we're going to have a private market health insurance system that works. 

by publius on 03/21/2010 05:30:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Propaganda Vista (none / 0)
Only when I got to college did I begin to grasp what rape involves and discover that my custom of exploring strange cities alone, on foot, day or night, looked more reckless to others than eccentric. All right, I made mistakes, especially in Minneapolis, and these vistaprint discount voucher mistakes were at the time an occasion for feelings of failure and shame. No one has updated this living wage to take into account the accelerating Twin Cities rent inflation of 2000.

by Vandervoort on 05/05/2010 03:06:43 AM EST

Progressive Propoganda | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: