Stone Cupid Real

Special Feature: Listen to Greg Palast's exclusive interview with health insurance company whistleblower Wendell Potter. Press play below to hear the clip.

Also, read Greg Palast's expert analysis,
The S-Word and Dr. Kevorkian's Accountant. •

Former insurance executive Wendell Potter tells Greg Palast, in an exclusive interview for Truthout.org, that "the system's rigged" to kill off so-called "health cooperatives." Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine cast the only Republican vote on the Senate Finance Committee for the Obama health care plan, but only on the condition that Democrats drop their demand for a "public option" insurer in favor of private doctor/hospital cooperatives.

Earlier today, Potter told Truthout.org that the senator's plan is "disingenuous or naive," because, in most states, "the system's rigged" to lock up all patients under one for-profit monopoly. While a publicly-funded insurer might succeed in forcing insurers to cut premium charges, Snowe's cooperatives "don't stand a snowball's chance" of competing against the for-profit monopolies.

Potter, once vice president of CIGNA, told Truthout.org that, "The insurance industry, if it were honest" would admit that it "loves" the Senate Finance Committee's version of the health care legislation as the bill provides nearly half a trillion dollars ($461 billion) in subsidy payments directly from the Treasury to the industry.

As politicians and interest groups try to shape the outcome of the health care overhaul, they've offered interpretations that are so wildly different that truth sometimes seems to be taking a vacation.

Some - like the contention that a House health care overhaul (HR 3200) would create "death panels" that decide end-of-life care - are false. Some are misleading, and others are true.

Many of the claims are being floated by advocacy groups, then amplified on the Internet and at town hall events hosted by members of Congress. Lawmakers have contributed to the rhetoric, as well.

The majority of the claims deal with the House bill that awaits floor action in September. The Senate is not as far along in the process with its legislative proposal. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has approved a draft bill, but the Finance Committee is still working on its version. The lack of a unified Senate approach has led proponents and opponents to focus much of their criticism on the House measure.

The following examination of health care claims and their sources is not comprehensive but provides an overview of the commonly recited talking points in the debate.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Claim: The House bill would create a government committee to decide what treatments or benefits patients may receive in a retooled health care system.

Source: The office of House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, made the claim in a news release. It also was found in a Web publication by the group Family Security Matters.

Misleading. A committee would make recommendations on what sorts of minimum benefits insurers should be required to provide, but these standards are a floor, not a ceiling. Insurers could offer more benefits if they chose, perhaps to gain a competitive advantage to draw customers, but they could not offer less.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Claim: Under the House bill, health care will be rationed, especially care for seniors.

Source: A number of congressional Republicans and conservative groups have made this claim. It's been repeated online and in some television advertisements by groups such as Patients United Now, which is funded in part by another right-leaning interest group, Americans United for Prosperity.

False. The House bill says almost the opposite - that insurers can't charge patients more than $5,000 a year for an individual or $10,000 for a family toward the cost of their own health care. It does not set limits on how much the plans can spend on each patient, however. As for seniors, they would still be covered by Medicare, and the bill does not set any benefit limits for that program.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Claim: Employers will have to automatically enroll their workers in the public plan, according to the House bill.

Source: This assertion originated from a handout that conservative groups circulated via e-mail and at rallies. It's derived from a Web publication by Family Security Matters and has been repeated online by groups such as Patients United Now.

False. The House bill would require companies to enroll workers in whatever group insurance plan they offer as part of the mandate that employers provide health insurance coverage. But workers could opt out of automatic enrollment in an employer's plan if they want. The House bill is silent about enrolling in a specific plan.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Claim: Any individual who doesn't have acceptable health insurance as defined by the government will have to pay a 2.5 percent income tax.

Source: Several places, including a Boehner press release.

True. The bill requires all Americans to obtain insurance or pay a penalty. There would be exemptions for children and other dependents, people living overseas and members of religious faiths that believe in limiting medical treatment, among other groups.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Claim: A government-run insurance plan would drive all private insurers out of business.

Source: A Conservatives for Patients Rights advertisement.

Misleading. A number of conservative groups have argued that a public plan would squeeze concessions out of health providers, undercut private plans and drive those insurers out of business. But a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of the House bill says that, of the people who would get coverage in the new health insurance exchange, 21 million would go to private plans, while 9 million would go to the public plan.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Claim: The government would have "real-time access" to individual bank accounts and create a "national ID health card."

Source: Conservative groups opposed to the Democrats' health care overhaul have asserted this in chain e-mails and at rallies across the country. Many claims emanate from the Family Security Matters Web publication.

False. A section of the bill would require insurers to make it easier for patients to calculate the cost of their care by providing information about the prices of treatments in the doctor's office. The House bill also would allow - but not require - insurers to issue patients a "machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card," similar to the insurance cards most people with coverage already carry. The card would not be issued by the government.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Claim: The government would provide an "approved list of end-of-life resources," require health care providers to consult with the government on end-of-life care, require individuals to create living wills or advance directives regarding end-of-life care. Such mandates will lead to government-ordered "assisted suicide" or "euthanasia."

Source: Most famously, Alaska's Republican former Gov. Sarah Palin stated this on her Facebook page. The claim has been repeated by overhaul opponents.

False. Claims that the legislation would establish "death panels" have made this one of the most controversial and talked-about provisions in the House measure. But they are fiction. The bill would authorize Medicare reimbursement for doctors who consult with their patients on end-of-life care, including the creation of advance directives, powers of attorney and orders for life-sustaining treatment - documents that allow individuals to control the care they receive when they are incapacitated.

Nothing in the bill would mandate such consultations, nor would patients be required to create advance directives or other documents related to end-of-life care in order for doctors to be paid.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Claim: The bill tells doctors what and how much they can own.

Source: A handout being circulated via e-mail and at rallies by conservative groups opposing Democrats' health care effort, with many of the claims taken from the Web publication by Family Security Matters.

Misleading. Congressional Democrats and some Republicans have long sought to limit the creation and growth of "physician-owned" hospitals. Studies have shown that physicians tend to refer patients to hospitals in which they hold a financial stake and prescribe more procedures than necessary when they have a financial stake in the hospital. Over the last decade, Congress has periodically enacted moratoriums on physician-owned hospitals.

The House bill spells out a limited set of circumstances in which physicians would be allowed to invest in hospitals and how much of an ownership stake they can take. Existing hospitals owned by physicians would be "grandfathered" in, but their stakes would not be allowed to expand.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Claim: Preventive screenings for disease, aggressive treatments to keep illnesses from becoming acute and making changes in communities to promote healthier lifestyles would reduce the cost of health care.

Source: Many overhaul proponents inside and outside of government have made this claim. Democrats have cited it as a rationale for using preventive care as a source of cost-savings: A Partnership for Prevention policy paper, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee's a Health Care for America Now fact sheet, and a Prescription For Change fact sheet.

Misleading. Although liberal lawmakers and advocacy groups frequently say preventive care will lower health care costs, experts disagree when it comes to preventive care provided by doctors. The cost of screening and treating a large population is often greater than caring for the smaller groups of people struck with diseases. A CBO analysis of the House bill found that provisions that would remove co-payments for preventive services for Medicare and Medicaid patients would cost $9.9 billion. The CBO has not released an analysis of the Senate's draft bill, but past CBO reports have calculated preventive care as a cost, not a savings.

However, advocates argue that preventive care goes beyond medical treatments. Significant savings could be gained from investing in sidewalks to promote exercise, and making other changes such as healthier food in schools and labeling menus to promote good heath, proponents say.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Claim: Legislation restructuring the health care system will not add to the federal budget deficit.

Source: Top Democrats, including President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada have made such claims.

False. A CBO analysis of the House bill found that it would produce a deficit of $239 billion over 10 years. House Democratic aides contend that this figure is inaccurate because it includes a $245 billion provision to adjust Medicare payments to physicians. They argue that the fix to physician payment rates is undertaken every year, and Congress is likely to pass it again with or without a health care overhaul.

In the Senate, the CBO scored portions of a measure being drafted by the Finance Committee at a lower cost than the House bill. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee's draft bill was scored at $611.4 billion, meaning it would not impact the deficit. Senate Finance Committee members also have talked about keeping the Medicare physicians' payment adjustment off the books, as well - meaning that the Senate bill could boost the deficit.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Claim: Individuals who like their current health insurance plans can keep them.

Source: President Obama and many other Democrats have cited this in calling for a health care overhaul.

Misleading. Neither the House nor Senate legislation would require individuals with insurance to change their coverage. Both bills would continue the practice of workers enrolling in plans offered by their employers. But, if enacted, the overhaul would trigger significant changes in the health insurance industry, which could prompt employers to change the menu of plans they offer employees. An insurance plan offered by employers before the overhaul may not be the same one offered after the overhaul.

An overhaul also is expected to reduce reimbursement rates for a private-sector Medicare alternative called Medicare Advantage, leading some insurance companies to decrease plan offerings. Seniors covered by those plans would likely end up back in regular Medicare.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Claim: A health care overhaul will lower premiums for people buying insurance.

Source: Democratic leaders have made the claim, and it was a centerpiece of Obama's justification for a health care overhaul. More recently, the president has talked about slowing the growth of health care costs.

Misleading. While the jump in the cost of premiums may slow, it's unlikely that their cost will decline. The House bill with its public option aims to lower government payments to providers. Reduced payments mean the government could charge those enrolled in the public option lower premiums than private insurers charge. Such a move could put pressure on private insurers to lower their premiums.

However, in a concession to fiscally conservative House Democrats known as Blue Dogs, the legislation would require public option administrators to negotiate rates with providers, instead of pegging payments at a fixed level above Medicare rates. If public option administrators are unsuccessful in negotiating lower payments to providers, there will be significantly less pressure on private insurance companies to lower premiums.

Hasty headlines to the contrary, it is very likely that a strong public option will be part of a final health insurance reform bill when it finally passes Congress this fall. There are three reasons:

1). A Public Option is the most elegant and politically viable solution to a major practical problem. Three basic models have been adopted by Western industrial nations to provide universal health care to their populations.

The government can directly employ doctors and hospitals to provide service. That is the system they have in Britain where they spend 40% less per person on health care than in the U.S. and get pretty good reviews from their citizens. It's the same system that we use to provide health care to veterans through the Veterans Administration.

The government can provide heath insurance for everyone as it does in Canada - or as we do in the U.S. with Medicare. Medical practices and hospitals are in private hands, but the health insurance fund is managed by the government. Again, that system seems to work quite well and also does a good job at controlling costs.

The third approach is to require individuals and businesses to purchase insurance and leave it to private insurance companies to provide that coverage. The problem with this approach is that requires some mechanism to control costs. That is particularly true in the United States where insurance companies are one of only two industries (Major League Baseball being the other) that are excepted from the anti-trust laws that are aimed at insuring competitive markets. In fact, most major health insurance markets are dominated by two or three companies so there is no real competition - particularly with respect to price.

Once everyone is required to buy insurance, the companies can have a field day raising prices and profits using the government to guarantee they are paid - either through subsidies or the imposition of fines. You can see why, from an insurance company perspective, this would be a great deal.

But from the point of view of the taxpayers - and the insurance ratepayers - it would be a disaster. It would be like giving the insurance companies a license to take your money - with no regulation - all enforced by government edict.

This, of course, is basically what happened with the prescription drug benefit - Medicare Part D. But there is a big political difference. A huge percentage of the money used to pay the insurance and drug companies in Medicare Part D comes from the taxpayers (or deficits). Most of the money that will go to pay for health insurance in a new system will come from ratepayers - individuals and companies who will feel the sting of rate increases directly.

What politician in his right mind would pass a law that requires individuals and businesses to buy products from companies who can then charge whatever the traffic will bear - especially in an industry where premiums have increased three times faster than wages, and profits keep heading skyward even in the worst recession in 60 years? Once government requires you to purchase a product, it has to provide some means to guarantee that the price is fair.

There are only two real practical solutions to this problem. On the one hand, you could set up a public health insurance option that does not have the same incentives to increase profit or CEO salaries and would compete against the private insurance companies and keep them honest. That is what President Obama has proposed. Or you could regulate health insurance rates.

Now rate regulation is not a crazy idea. It's been done for years in segments of the insurance market at the state level. But if you think the private health insurance industry is fighting tooth and nail to stop a Public option - wait to see what they would do to stop rate regulation.

A public option has none of the bureaucratic complexity of rate regulation and uses competitive forces to keep rates down. It is simple and elegant.

That's why the President and his top advisors support a public option.

2). The politics of Congress and the White House. There are a couple of political givens:

• Both the White House and Democratic Leadership understand that they must pass health insurance reform. Defeat is simply not an option. Both the Carter and Clinton administrations foundered because they proposed major policy initiatives and failed to achieve them. The effect was to depress overall support for the President and Democratic Party. In 1994 it cost the Democratic Party the control of Congress when large numbers of Democratic Members (mostly moderates) lost their seats in the mid-term elections. These defeats crippled their ability go back to the political well for subsequent big initiatives.

So far this White House is batting 13 for 13 in major initiatives - but health care is by far the biggest of them all. The White House and Democratic Leadership will do whatever is necessary to win. Health care is their signature issue.

• Finance Committee Ranking Member Charles Grassley has made it increasingly clear that he will not support any "bi-partisan" measure that is not endorsed by a majority of Republicans. That means that the likelihood of a "bi-partisan" deal are about zero.

This leaves two other approaches to victory. First is a strategy that works to get all Democrats and a couple of Republicans to vote for cloture, but not necessarily for a final bill. Second is the budget process known as reconciliation under which the bill could pass with just 50 votes (plus the Vice-President). Either of these options will make possible passage of a public option in the Senate.

• There are at least 100 Democrats in the House who would have to be dragged kicking and screaming to vote for health insurance reform that does not include a public option. In fact, it is hard to see how a bill could pass the House without a public option.

3). Inclusion of a public option is necessary to assure a mobilizable base to counterbalance a highly-motivated right wing and make passage of any health insurance reform possible. The public option has become an iconic symbol for Progressives. Without it, many would lose the passion that sends them to town meetings, phone banks and demonstrations. Without a public option to fuel this passion, the forces for reform would likely be overwhelmed by the shock troops of the right wing.

When you put all of these factors together, it is very likely that later this year President Obama will sign a health insurance reform bill into law that will indeed include a strong public option - not simply because the President clearly supports it, but also because of the practical policy and political considerations that make it critically necessary to success.

--------

Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book: "Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win," available onAmazon.com.