RNC Health Care Research Full Of Cracks

RNC "Myth" Countered With Incomplete "Reality"

RNC: "Myth: Obama Claims His Plan Will Give Everybody Low-Cost 'Quality Health Care'"

RNC: "Reality: Democrat [sic] Plan Creates $1+ Trillion Deficit, Leaves Over 36 Million Americans Uninsured" [GOP.com, 6/23/09]

But The Excerpt Of The CBO Analysis Quoted In The Research Document Shows That The Analysis Is Not Complete

RNC Bullet: "CBO Concludes Democrat Plan Increases Federal Deficit By $1 Trillion And Counting Over Next Decade.  '[E]nacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. ... It is important to note, however, that those figures do not represent a formal or complete cost estimate for the draft legislation...Moreover, because expanded eligibility for the Medicaid program may be added at a later date, those figures are not likely to represent the impact that more comprehensive proposals-which might include a significant expansion of Medicaid or other options for subsidizing coverage for those with income below 150percent of the federal poverty level--would have both on the federal budget and on the extent of insurance coverage.' (Douglas W. Elmendorf, Congressional Budget Office Director, Letter to Senator Edward M. Kennedy, 6/15/09)" [GOP.com, 6/23/09, emphasis original]

If The Analysis Is Incomplete, The Figures Within The Analysis Are Irrelevant

RNC Bullet: "Democrat Plan Fails To Insure 36 Million Americans. 'The analysis says that the number of uninsured Americans, now estimated at around 50 million, would decrease to about 36 million once the bill was fully implemented.' ('CBO: Senate Bill $1 Trillion Over 10 Years,' The Associated Press, 6/15/09)" [GOP.com, 6/23/09]

RNC "Reality" Supported By Partial Study Findings

RNC: "Myth: Obama Claims 'Public Option' Just Another Choice"

RNC: "Reality: 'Public Option' Will Be Only Option" [GOP.com, 6/23/09]

The RNC Research Team Uses A Faulty Figure To Support This "Reality":

RNC: "Lewin Group Finds Government-Run Health Care Could Drive 119 Million Americans From Their Current Plans." [GOP.com, 6/23/09]

NPR: Lewin Number Quoted "Hardly Represents The Entirety Of The Report."  According to NPR, the 119 million figure "hardly represents the entirety of the report [Lewin Group Vice President John] Sheils and colleague Randy Haught put out in April. The point of the study was to show that the number of people who would eventually join a government-sponsored public insurance plan would vary - dramatically - depending on how that plan is designed." [NPR, All Things Considered, 6/10/09]

Lewin Study Shows That As Few As 10.4 Million People Could Move To The Public Plan.  According to NPR, the Lewin Group's study shows that "if the public plan is limited to fewer people (perhaps only those in small businesses and individuals), or if the plan pays higher rates to doctors and hospitals, fewer people would join, both because fewer would be allowed and because the plan would be less financially attractive. According to the study, the number of people dropping private coverage could be as low as 10.4 million." [NPR, All Things Considered, 6/10/09]

RNC Cited An Op-Ed To Support Claim That A Public-Private System Cannot Survive

RNC: "Wharton Business School Professor Says Equal Competition Between  Government, Private Sector 'Impossible.' 'In reality, equal competition between a public plan and private plans would be impossible. The public plan would inexorably crowd out private plans, leading to a single­payer system.' (Scott E. Harrington, Op­-Ed, 'The 'Public Plan' Would Be The Only Plan,' The Wall Street Journal, 6/15/09)" [GOP.com, 6/23/09]

Op-Ed Author Connected To Libertarian Group

Harrington Is An Adjunct Scholar At The Cato Institute.  According to the Cato website, "Scott E. Harrington, an adjunct scholar, is professor in the Health Care Systems and Insurance and Risk Management Departments in the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. A former president of both the American Risk and Insurance Association and the Risk Theory Society, he has published articles in numerous academic and policy journals." [Cato.org, accessed 6/30/09]

• The Cato Institute Promotes Limited Government Ideals. According to its website: "The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace." [Cato.org, accessed 6/30/09]

Multiple Sources Have Debunked The Cries That The Government Will Put The Private Sector Out Of Business

Los Angeles Times: Public Plans Already Compete With Private Plans And "Set A Benchmark" For Care. The Los Angeles Times said: "The federal government already provides health insurance to about 83 million Americans through Medicare, Medicaid and other public programs, including those offered by the military. Private insurers, meanwhile, face growing criticism for refusing to cover people with preexisting conditions and dropping coverage for sick customers. 'This is a benchmark that will set a high standard that private plans have to meet,' said Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at UC Berkeley who advocates a public option." [Los Angeles Times, 5/10/09]

New York Times: Fears Of A Public Plan Putting Private Plans Out Of Business Are "Overblown." According to the New York Times: "What many critics seem to fear most is that a new public plan would sweep away its private competitors and evolve over time into a full-fledged single-payer system (sometimes called Medicare for all). No matter how fair the competition between public and private plans might be at the start, they warn that the government would find it irresistible to rig the outcome through its regulatory and pricing powers and its ability, in a pinch, to subsidize the public plan with taxpayers' money. That fear seems overblown. Innovative, nimble private plans with well-integrated service systems might outperform any government plan, just as some now outperform Medicare through better coordination of services, stronger preventive care and broader benefits. A new public plan is neither the cornerstone of health care reform nor the death knell of private insurance. It should be tried as one element of comprehensive reform." [New York Times, 4/6/09; emphasis added]

Center For American Progress: Many States Run Public And Private Plans Alongside Each Other Successfully. According to the Center for American Progress: "Today, state governments (all of which regulate insurance companies) operate public Medicaid programs, purchase insurance for thousands of public employees, and regulate insurers. In fact, many states successfully offer their employees and retirees private health insurance plans side-by-side with these states' self-funded health insurance plans." [Center for American Progress, March 2009]

Economic Policy Institute: In Uncertain Economic Times, A Public Plan Is "Backup Insurance" For The United States' Largely Employer-Based Insurance System. According to the Economic Policy Institute: "Another reason that the health system needs a public health insurance option is that it serves as backup insurance for all Americans. While a majority of Americans are covered by employer-sponsored health insurance, many do not have access. Even among full-time workers, 17% do not have insurance. Furthermore, many people lose coverage each year when they leave their jobs and then pick it up again at a later time, spending at least brief time periods without insurance. Aside from the risks of being uninsured, these individuals and families also must deal with the disruption of changing providers, and the lack of continuity in their care. Though employer-sponsored health insurance is the backbone of the American health insurance system, it is not an effective backstop particularly in this time of high unemployment. A public health insurance option would offer a plan Americans could depend on." [EPI.org, 5/13/09]

RNC "Reality" Neglects To Acknowledge The Americans Who Are Denied Health Coverage

RNC: "Myth: Obama Claims Americans Will Be Able To Keep Doctor Of Their Choice"

RNC: "Reality: Doctors Will Turns [sic] Away Patients Because Of Government Price Fixing" [GOP.com, 6/23/09]

Without Complete Legislation, It Is Futile To Anticipate Physicians' Decisions Regarding Patient Care...And The Current Medicare Rates Save Money Without Resulting In Underpayment

MedPAC Chair: Medicare Rates Do Not Result in Underpayment For Doctors and Hospitals.  During testimony in front of the House Ways and Means Committee, Glenn Hackbarth, chairman of MedPAC, said that Medicare "doesn't underpay doctors and hospitals...We think that Medicare rates are adequate and consistent with the efficient delivery of services."  Hackbarth also pointed out that those hospitals that don't rely on the high payments from private insurers can control their costs while preserving quality. [ThinkProgress' Wonk Room, 6/10/2009]

Using Medicare Rates Would Save the Most Money. According to a study published by the Commonwealth Fund, a public health insurance plan that pays Medicare rates would save $3 trillion over 10 years, a public health insurance plan with higher rates would save $2 trillion and reform without a public plan would save only $1.2 trillion. [Commonwealth Fund, 6/24/2009]

Under The Current System, Americans Are Turned Away From Private Health Coverage Every Day

Americans Face Denials For Coverage From Insurance Companies Every Day.  Americans are already facing the denial of treatments from their private insurance companies, according to the Wall Street Journal. As Diane Archer, director of the Health Care Project at Institute for America's Future recently argued in the New York Times: "As any doctor will tell you, when a private health insurance plan delays or denies a physician-recommended service, it is deciding who gets care and what kind of care people get." [Wall Street Journal, 9/25/08; New York Times, 5/8/09]

Insurance Applicants Rejected Based On Height And Weight.  In an article offering advice on what to do when you lose your health care, the Washington Post reported: " 'In the past four or five years, I've had people turned down just because of height and weight,' says Jerry Patt, an independent [health insurance] agent in Gaithersburg who has been in the business for more than 35 years. 'They could be having no medical problems whatsoever, but their build was not acceptable.'" [Washington Post, 6/22/08, emphasis added]

Insurers Justify Exclusion Policies, Saying "They Need These Strategies To Protect Themselves."  The New York Times reported, "with individual coverage, insurers in many states can vary their prices based on medical history, exclude certain services or reject anyone they consider a bad risk...Insurers say they need these strategies to protect themselves, because some customers apply only after they get sick or pregnant, skewing the pool toward people with high expenses." [New York Times, 6/1/08]

Only A Few Insurance Companies Dominate The Market, Leaving Americans With Limited Choices In Health Care.  According to the American Medical Association, 94 percent of United States health care markets are considered highly concentrated, meaning that one company or a small group of companies control a great deal of the market. [American Medical Association, "Competition in Health Insurance," 2008 Update]

RNC "Reality" Confuses Savings With Higher Deficits

RNC: "Myth: Obama Claims Government-Run Health Care Good For Economy"

RNC: "Government-Run Health Care Means Higher Deficits, Costs And Taxes" [GOP.com, 6/23/09]

Studies Show That The Addition Of A Public Option Would Save Money

United States Could Save Nearly $50 Billion A Year If A Public-Private System Were Enacted.  According to a report from the Institute for America's Future, "the United States spends nearly six times as much per capita on health care administration as the average for Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations. Nearly all of this discrepancy is due to the sales, marketing, and underwriting activities of our highly fragmented framework of private insurance, with its diverse billing and review practices.  Indeed, according to research by the Commonwealth Fund, the United States could save up to $46 billion a year if it spent what other countries with mixed public-private insurance systems, such as Germany, spend on insurers' administrative costs." [Institute for America's Future, 12/17/2009]

Including A Public Plan Option Would Produce The Most Savings.  According to a health care reform proposal put forth by the Commonwealth Fund, savings would be most significant under a plan with a public health insurance option.  The study compared three health care reform scenarios - "one would limit enrollment through the insurance exchange and access to the public plan to individuals and small employers," one "would limit choices in the insurance exchange to private plans, eliminating the public plan option," and the third would include a public plan option with open enrollment.  The study found that the "exchange that sponsors a public plan option, in addition to private plans, and is open to all employers...would achieve the greatest reduction in spending growth." [Commonwealth Fund, 2/19/2009]

Public Plan Option Would Lead To Lower Premiums. According to the Institute for America's Future, "The clearest evidence of the savings produced by the public plan is its premiums, which are estimated to be about 23 percent lower than comparable private insurance for the same set of benefits for the same population." [Institute for America's Future, 12/17/2009]

RNC "Reality" Based On Horrors Of Canadian Health Care Experiences, Not Horrible American Health Care Experiences

RNC: "Myth: Obama Claims GOP Using Scare Tactics On Government-Run Health Care"

 RNC: "Reality: Facts On Government-Run Health Care Are Scary" [GOP.com, 6/23/09]

The RNC Addresses Issues Of Health Care In Canada, But Ignores The Suffering Of Americans

BCBS Retroactively Cancelled Plan After Six-Year-Old's Tumor Surgery.  According to the Los Angeles Times, "when Steve and Leslie Shaeffer's daughter, Selah, was diagnosed at age 4 with a potentially fatal tumor in her jaw, they figured their health insurance would cover the bulk of her treatment costs. Instead, almost two years later, the Murrieta, Calif., couple face more than $60,000 in medical bills and fear the loss of their dream home...Shortly after Selah's medical bills hit $20,000, Blue Cross stopped covering them and eventually canceled her coverage retroactively, refusing to pay for treatment, including surgery the insurer had authorized in advance." [Los Angeles Times, 9/17/06]

After Caesarean Section, Company Told Woman She Would Be Insurable If She Had Been Sterilized.  The New York Times reported on a woman who was turned down for private health insurance because her first child was delivered via caesarean section: "Having the operation once increases the odds that it will be performed again, and if she became pregnant and needed another Caesarean, [the insurance company] did not want to pay for it. A letter from the company explained that if she had been sterilized after the Caesarean, or if she were over 40 and had given birth two or more years before applying, she might have qualified." [New York Times, 6/1/08]