Healthcare

[hortysir]

~~~~So when you are told “you’ll have a choice” – it’s true. But only until the private insurance companies go under, by a more affordable gov’t HC system.~~~~~

Hey, Syb, you remember when we were talking about Y1, Y2, Y3, and so on???
Well, Y1 is referred to yet again when it talks about private insurance.
Unlees one is "grandfathered in" prior to Y1, they don't have that "option"

(great research, btw)

[AutumnRain]

Why America’s medical industry hates the NHS
Andrew Neather
14.08.09

Under normal circumstances, the spectacle of Gordon Brown using *Twitter would offer the enticing prospect of more YouTube-style pratfalls.

But I'm glad the PM has twittered in defence of the NHS, following attacks on it from US conservatives trying to discredit President Obama's health reform plans. And to those British Right-wingers chiming in, such as the Tory MEP Daniel Hannan, I'd just ask this: have they actually tried American healthcare?

Because I have, and for me that makes the choice between a US-style, largely private system and a socialised one such as the NHS very simple.

When I think of American healthcare, I think of my friend Andrew, gravely ill with a brain tumour, in a Houston hospital. He was in pre-op with his head shaved when the medics got a call from the accounts department: his insurance money was about to run out. So they got him up and dressed again.

He did get his operation a few days later-accounts had screwed up — but the money ran low soon afterwards. They gave him his X-rays and told him to get on a bus across town to a cheaper hospital. He died the following year, age 31. I had a similar, bare-bones student-health package to Andrew: his ordeal didn't make me feel any safer.

Then I think of my uncle John in *Cheltenham, who succumbed to oesophageal cancer early this year. At his age, 79, and with the disease far advanced and spreading into his lungs by the time he realised there was a problem, there wasn't much the *doctors could do. Still, he got pain relief, and soon after getting the *diagnosis he had a stent put into his throat to help him eat. He died peacefully a month later in a hospice.

That for me is an eloquent refutation of the rubbish about the NHS now being peddled by US industry lobbyists and their Republican allies through TV attack ads and the like. They claim that our doctors let old people who could be treated die, that those over 59 are ineligible for heart treatment, that the NHS is “evil” and “Orwellian”.

They need treatment. At present in the US, 45 million people, nearly 15 per cent of the population, have no healthcare insurance at all. Some get basic care under the means-tested Medicaid scheme, while since 1986, everyone has in theory been eligible for emergency treatment, although if you try it, you're liable to be harassed for payment. Meanwhile, the elderly are paid for by Medicare and there is better treatment for military *veterans.

Yet what most foreigners to the US don't realise is that even for those with health insurance, the US medical industry delivers a poor deal. Getting and keeping employer health insurance is a constant concern, especially for anyone changing jobs, or worried about their job security in the recession. Even then it's often not free, and insurance premiums have been rising rapidly in recent years. At least one couple I know tied the knot in a “blue card marriage”, so that one who was jobless got on their employed partner's health plan.

Everyday healthcare for most *middle-class professionals is usually provided by a health maintenance organisation (HMO). HMOs effectively run private GP surgeries. I suffer from asthma: while I was working as a journalist in Detroit, my HMO would give me a brief appointment in a bare office with a clock-watching physician's assistant (a kind of glorified nurse — you rarely get to see an MD). It was similar even at my US university, Duke, home of a leading American teaching and research hospital: GP care consisted of a long wait to see a physician's assistant.

By contrast, my London GP is a real doctor, as are the rest of the GPs in the practice (indeed, she is a senior university lecturer in general practice). I can see her within a few days, or if it's for one of my children, the same day. She has come to our home to do the post-natal checks on all three of them.

It's the kind of personal care that most Americans can only dream of. It's not surprising that when, for example, I recount the excellent midwife care that my wife had for her three births, all at home, American friends' reaction is invariably: “And you didn't have to pay?”

The campaign against Obama's health reforms is straightforward and entirely self-interested. It is powered by private health industry dollars: the industry stands to lose a lot of money if it is forced to loosen its stranglehold on the nation's health. The US spent $2.2 trillion on healthcare in 2007, more than $7,400 per head of population, almost double the average for developed nations.

Somebody's getting fat off that wasteful spending and it's not ordinary Americans or the companies that employ them, for whom the cost of their health insurance contributions is often second only to their wage bill.

The same scare tactics worked last time — in 1993-94, when a multi-million-dollar lobbying and advertising campaign sank Hillary Clinton's modest health reform proposals. This time, the private health industry has already spent $1.2 million on TV ads alone, while its lobbyists pack out town-hall meetings.

Of course, the NHS is far from perfect. It took my uncle several worrying weeks to see a specialist. And the first hospital ward he ended up in was pretty grim, sharing with four other men.

At the same time, Tony Blair's o*bsessive urge to give more business to the private sector has created distortions, as has the culture of targets. Yet most waiting times have plummeted. It has cost more than it should have but the NHS, at least up until the spending crunch, had got steadily better.

Having experienced private US healthcare first-hand, I'm always a bit puzzled that people here aren't more worried about the chipping away of free NHS care by the whackier Blairites or Tories. I think it's because most Brits can't remember the pre-NHS era, now more than 60 years ago, and simply wouldn't believe just how crass *fully privatised healthcare can be.

The poison now being spread in the US should be a reminder of the *cynicism of much of the American health industry, poised to become one of the biggest private-sector players here. However bad the mags in the GP's waiting room, I'll take my chances with our brilliant NHS.

[hortysir]

WADR, there are equally horrific stories of NHS...

[sybarite]

Originally Posted by AutumnRain

Why America’s medical industry hates the NHS
Andrew Neather
14.08.09

Under normal circumstances, the spectacle of Gordon Brown using *Twitter would offer the enticing prospect of more YouTube-style pratfalls.

But I'm glad the PM has twittered in defence of the NHS, following attacks on it from US conservatives trying to discredit President Obama's health reform plans. And to those British Right-wingers chiming in, such as the Tory MEP Daniel Hannan, I'd just ask this: have they actually tried American healthcare?

Because I have, and for me that makes the choice between a US-style, largely private system and a socialised one such as the NHS very simple.

When I think of American healthcare, I think of my friend Andrew, gravely ill with a brain tumour, in a Houston hospital. He was in pre-op with his head shaved when the medics got a call from the accounts department: his insurance money was about to run out. So they got him up and dressed again.

He did get his operation a few days later-accounts had screwed up — but the money ran low soon afterwards. They gave him his X-rays and told him to get on a bus across town to a cheaper hospital. He died the following year, age 31. I had a similar, bare-bones student-health package to Andrew: his ordeal didn't make me feel any safer.

Then I think of my uncle John in *Cheltenham, who succumbed to oesophageal cancer early this year. At his age, 79, and with the disease far advanced and spreading into his lungs by the time he realised there was a problem, there wasn't much the *doctors could do. Still, he got pain relief, and soon after getting the *diagnosis he had a stent put into his throat to help him eat. He died peacefully a month later in a hospice.

That for me is an eloquent refutation of the rubbish about the NHS now being peddled by US industry lobbyists and their Republican allies through TV attack ads and the like. They claim that our doctors let old people who could be treated die, that those over 59 are ineligible for heart treatment, that the NHS is “evil” and “Orwellian”.

They need treatment. At present in the US, 45 million people, nearly 15 per cent of the population, have no healthcare insurance at all. Some get basic care under the means-tested Medicaid scheme, while since 1986, everyone has in theory been eligible for emergency treatment, although if you try it, you're liable to be harassed for payment. Meanwhile, the elderly are paid for by Medicare and there is better treatment for military *veterans.

Yet what most foreigners to the US don't realise is that even for those with health insurance, the US medical industry delivers a poor deal. Getting and keeping employer health insurance is a constant concern, especially for anyone changing jobs, or worried about their job security in the recession. Even then it's often not free, and insurance premiums have been rising rapidly in recent years. At least one couple I know tied the knot in a “blue card marriage”, so that one who was jobless got on their employed partner's health plan.

Everyday healthcare for most *middle-class professionals is usually provided by a health maintenance organisation (HMO). HMOs effectively run private GP surgeries. I suffer from asthma: while I was working as a journalist in Detroit, my HMO would give me a brief appointment in a bare office with a clock-watching physician's assistant (a kind of glorified nurse — you rarely get to see an MD). It was similar even at my US university, Duke, home of a leading American teaching and research hospital: GP care consisted of a long wait to see a physician's assistant.

By contrast, my London GP is a real doctor, as are the rest of the GPs in the practice (indeed, she is a senior university lecturer in general practice). I can see her within a few days, or if it's for one of my children, the same day. She has come to our home to do the post-natal checks on all three of them.

It's the kind of personal care that most Americans can only dream of. It's not surprising that when, for example, I recount the excellent midwife care that my wife had for her three births, all at home, American friends' reaction is invariably: “And you didn't have to pay?”

The campaign against Obama's health reforms is straightforward and entirely self-interested. It is powered by private health industry dollars: the industry stands to lose a lot of money if it is forced to loosen its stranglehold on the nation's health. The US spent $2.2 trillion on healthcare in 2007, more than $7,400 per head of population, almost double the average for developed nations.

Somebody's getting fat off that wasteful spending and it's not ordinary Americans or the companies that employ them, for whom the cost of their health insurance contributions is often second only to their wage bill.

The same scare tactics worked last time — in 1993-94, when a multi-million-dollar lobbying and advertising campaign sank Hillary Clinton's modest health reform proposals. This time, the private health industry has already spent $1.2 million on TV ads alone, while its lobbyists pack out town-hall meetings.

Of course, the NHS is far from perfect. It took my uncle several worrying weeks to see a specialist. And the first hospital ward he ended up in was pretty grim, sharing with four other men.

At the same time, Tony Blair's o*bsessive urge to give more business to the private sector has created distortions, as has the culture of targets. Yet most waiting times have plummeted. It has cost more than it should have but the NHS, at least up until the spending crunch, had got steadily better.

Having experienced private US healthcare first-hand, I'm always a bit puzzled that people here aren't more worried about the chipping away of free NHS care by the whackier Blairites or Tories. I think it's because most Brits can't remember the pre-NHS era, now more than 60 years ago, and simply wouldn't believe just how crass *fully privatised healthcare can be.

The poison now being spread in the US should be a reminder of the *cynicism of much of the American health industry, poised to become one of the biggest private-sector players here. However bad the mags in the GP's waiting room, I'll take my chances with our brilliant NHS.

Try telling the minimum of 150,000 Canadians who must come to the U.S. for health care just how wonderful their health care system is.

Canadian citizens are not required to hold a visa to enter the U.S., so no government agency tracks Canadians entering the country for medical reasons, said Devon Herrick, a senior fellow with the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis, which researches medical tourism. Richard Baker’s Timely Medical Alternatives, based in Vancouver, says his company annually helps 150,000 Canadians on medical waiting lists receive care in the U.S. “But lots of others come without the benefit of our help,” said Baker, who founded the company in 2003. “There are people who live near the border who come out on their own.”

[Pixsurguy]

Originally Posted by sybarite

Try telling the minimum of 150,000 Canadians who must come to the U.S. for health care just how wonderful their health care system is.

Canadian citizens are not required to hold a visa to enter the U.S., so no government agency tracks Canadians entering the country for medical reasons, said Devon Herrick, a senior fellow with the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis, which researches medical tourism. Richard Baker’s Timely Medical Alternatives, based in Vancouver, says his company annually helps 150,000 Canadians on medical waiting lists receive care in the U.S. “But lots of others come without the benefit of our help,” said Baker, who founded the company in 2003. “There are people who live near the border who come out on their own.”

So apparently the U.S. Citizens who go north for prescription drugs don't exist? Same ol' same ol' - ignore what doesn't support your position.
OR - as you suggested earlier - stick a pejorative label on it to justify hiding it. Yessiree - free, honest and open debate. Yeah, that's the ticket. Sure. Uh huh.

[sybarite]

Originally Posted by Pixsurguy

So apparently the U.S. Citizens who go north for prescription drugs don't exist? Same ol' same ol' - ignore what doesn't support your position.
OR - as you suggested earlier - stick a pejorative label on it to justify hiding it. Yessiree - free, honest and open debate. Yeah, that's the ticket. Sure. Uh huh.

AR was debating health care, not prescription drugs. That could be another debate in itself.

[Pixsurguy]

The Yahoo report of the Associated Press story below may be found here: Britons defend their health care from US criticism - Yahoo! News

Britons defend their health care from US criticism

AP


By MEERA SELVA, Associated Press Writer – 30 mins ago

LONDON – Britons reacted with outrage Friday at American criticism of the country's health care system and defended their cradle-to-grave medical coverage on Twitter, television and in the tabloids.

Right-wing attacks on President Barack Obama's health reform plans have struck a nerve in Britain, where residents broadly take for granted their universal coverage under the state-funded National Health Service — and look askance at the millions of Americans without insurance.

"Land of the Fee," declared the Daily Mirror in reference to the United States' high-charging health model. The London newspaper called the "lies and distortions" being circulated in the United States about the National Health Service "truly sickening."

"Jaw droppingly untruthful," said the British Medical Association's chairman, Hamish Meldrum.

"NHS often makes the difference between pain and comfort, despair and hope, life and death," Prime Minister Gordon Brown tweeted. "Thanks for always being there."

Even British health campaigner Kate Spall — who criticizes NHS failings in U.S. television ads produced by Conservatives for Patients' Rights, a lobby group that opposes Obama's plans — declared that the group had misled her and was distorting her true views. Spall's mother died of kidney cancer while waiting for treatment.

"There are failings in the system but I'm not anti-NHS at all," Spall told the British Broadcasting Corp.

"I help the vulnerable patients in our country that come to me for help, those that have been denied treatment," she said. "So the irony is, the people that are falling through the net in the U.S. are patients that I would support anyway."

Britain's opposition Conservative Party is distancing itself from its maverick member of European Parliament, Daniel Hannan, who has criticized the NHS on U.S. news programs.

Conservative leader David Cameron dismissed Hannan as having "eccentric views."

In an e-mail to Conservative Party workers published on his blog, Cameron said millions, including his own family, were grateful for NHS-provided care.

"Just look at all the support which the NHS has received on Twitter over the last couple of days," he wrote. "It is a reminder — if one were needed — of how proud we in Britain are of the NHS."

The NHS, founded in 1948, is the cornerstone of the United Kingdom's welfare state.

About 12 percent of the UK's 61 million residents have private insurance, but the vast majority rely on state-funded emergency care, surgery and access to family doctors. Even those who complain about the system say they want it improved, not dismantled.

British officials acknowledge that their system has been struggling to cope and faces a 15 billion pound ($24 billion) deficit. Hospitals are often overcrowded, dirty and understaffed, which means some patients do not get the care they are promised.

[sybarite]

Pg 167 Lines 18-23 – 2.5% tax imposed on those who do not have acceptable health care – ACCORDING TO GOVERNMENT STANDARDS.

[hortysir]

Originally Posted by Pixsurguy

Yessiree - free, honest and open debate. Yeah, that's the ticket. Sure. Uh huh.

Sorta like ridiculing and belittling your debate opponent rather than replying with your own thoughts

[indianajoe]

Print This
FACTCHECK.ORG
Seven Falsehoods About Health Care
Big myths about the current debate
By Brooks Jackson, Viveca Novak, Lori Robertson and Jess Henig | factcheck.org

Aug 14, 2009

Summary
So much for a slow news month. August feels like campaign season, with claims on health care coming at us daily. Does the House bill call for mandatory counseling on how to end seniors' lives sooner? Absolutely not. Will the government be dictating to doctors how to treat their patients? No. Do the bills propose cutting Medicare benefit levels? No on that one, too.

But on the other hand, has Congress figured out how to pay for this overhaul? Not yet. Or will it really save families $2,500 a year as the president keeps claiming? Good luck on that one, too.

In this article we offer a run-down of seven falsehoods we've taken on recently, with some additional updating and research thrown in.

Analysis
False: Government Will Decide What Care I Get (a.k.a. they won't give grandma a hip replacement)
This untrue claim has its roots in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the stimulus bill), which called for the creation of a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The council is charged with supporting and coordinating research that the government has been funding for years into which treatments work best, and in some cases, are most cost-effective. Supporters of this type of research say it can provide valuable information to doctors, improving care and also lowering cost.

Betsy McCaughey, a former Republican lieutenant governor of New York (and now a professing Democrat), wrote in an opinion piece that the government would actually tell doctors what procedures they could and couldn't perform. The claim took off from there, popping up in chain e-mails and Republican press conferences. It's not true. The legislation specifically says that the council can't issue requirements or guidelines on treatment or insurance benefits:

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 : Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Council to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer. … None of the reports submitted under this section or recommendations made by the Council shall be construed as mandates or clinical guidelines for payment, coverage, or treatment.

As for the health care bills themselves, the House's H.R. 3200 sets up a center to conduct and gather such research within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, an entity the CBO called "the most prominent federal agency supporting various types of research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments." Like the stimulus legislation, the bill states that: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Commission or the Center to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer.''

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee bill (not yet released in its entirety) calls for a similar center that "will promote health outcomes research and evaluation that enables patients and providers to identify which therapies work best for most people and to effectively identify where more personalized approaches to care are necessary for others," according to the summary of the bill.

This claim also stems from a fear that the U.S. will institute a system like that of the U.K., where the government provides and pays for health care. But none of the bills now being debated in Congress call for such a system, and the president has said he doesn't want nationalized or single-payer health care, as we've said severaltimes.

For more, see: "Doctor’s Orders?" Feb. 20

"Government-Run Health Care?" April 30

False: The Bill Is Paid For
At least, it isn't paid for yet.
President Obama has repeatedly said that a health care overhaul "will be paid for" and that he won't sign a bill that isn't deficit-neutral. But neither the House bill nor the Senate HELP Committee bill meets that criteria. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, the House bill as introduced would add a net $239 billion over 10 years to the deficit, while the HELP Committee bill racks up more, $597 billion over 10 years.

Obama has also said he has "identified two-thirds of those costs to be paid for by tax dollars that are already being spent right now." But "identified" is the operative word. These savings are estimates and whether around $650 billion (about two-thirds of the cost of health care over 10 years) can be saved remains to be seen. Most of the money would come from Medicare, but cuts in payments to insurers and practitioners aren't popular measures that move easily through Congress.

So the big questions remain. Will the president break his promise and sign a bill that piles up hundreds of billions of additional debt? Will the legislation have to be scaled back to cost less, and perhaps cover fewer of the uninsured? Who will pay additional taxes? Can pain-free reductions in other government programs be found?

"Obama’s Health Care News Conference," July 23

False: Private Insurance Will Be Illegal
In July, Investor's Business Daily published an editorial in which it claimed that H.R. 3200 would make private insurance illegal. But IBD was mistaken. It was citing the part of the bill that ensures people with individually purchased coverage don't have to give up that coverage unless they want to.

Under the House bill, people who want to buy new individual, nongroup coverage will have to purchase it through a new health insurance exchange. They can still buy private insurance – the exchange, in fact, would offer a range of private plans, in addition to a new federal health insurance option. However, those who were already buying their own insurance before the bill went into effect – about 14 million Americans – will have their plans grandfathered in. The part of the bill IBD cites doesn't forbid insurers from issuing new plans. It says that new individual plans will not be considered grandfathered, and will have to be purchased through the exchange.

"Private Insurance Not Outlawed" Aug. 13

False: The House Bill Requires Suicide Counseling
This claim is nonsense. In an appearance on former Sen. Fred Thompson's radio show, McCaughey also enthusiastically pushed the bogus claim that the House bill will require seniors to have regular counseling sessions on how to end their lives:

McCaughey, July 16: The Congress would make it mandatory … that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner, how to decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go into hospice care … all to do what's in society's best interest … and cut your life short.

This is a misrepresentation. What the bill actually provides for is voluntary Medicare-funded end-of-life counseling. In other words, if seniors choose to make advance decisions about the type of care and treatments they wish to receive at the end of their lives, Medicare will pay for them to sit down with their doctor and discuss their preferences. There is no requirement to attend regular sessions, and there is absolutely no provision encouraging euthanasia.

Of course, seniors who talk to their doctors about end-of-life care might well choose to discuss what types of life-saving treatment they wish to refuse. That choice has been federally guaranteed for almost 20 years. Euthanasia, on the other hand, is legal in only three states, making it even more unlikely to be a major part of the federal health plan.

"False Euthanasia Claims," July 29

False: Families Will Save $2,500
Proponents speak constantly of holding down rising medical costs. As recently as May 13, the president said legislation plus some voluntary measures by the private sector "could save families $2,500 in the coming years – $2,500 per family," echoing a claim he made countless times on the campaign trail last year.

Don't start spending that $2,500 just yet.

For one thing, Obama isn't actually promising to reduce health care spending below current levels, only to cut the rate of growth in spending. And even that is proving to be far tougher to accomplish than Obama led voters to believe. We've already mentioned that the Congressional Budget Office says "savings" in Medicare spending resulting from the House bill would fall short of what is needed to pay for two-thirds of its cost, which is Obama's goal. And those savings come only in what the government pays, not in what families pay.

Squeezing more savings, even from Medicare, is proving difficult. On July 17, Obama's lead man on the subject, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag, wrote to congressional leaders seeking legislation setting up an independent agency, the Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC). It would be made up of health care experts with the power to make a package of annual changes in the amounts Medicare would pay to doctors. The president must either approve or diapprove the entire package as offered; if he approves, it goes into effect unless Congess passes a joint resolution stopping it. But when CBO took a look, it estimated that the new agency would save a total of only $2 billion over the next decade.

As for saving $2,500 for families, as opposed to saving money for the government, the CBO's letter, signed by Director Douglas W. Elmendorf, said:

CBO: [E]xperts generally agree that changes in government policy have the potential to significantly reduce health care spending—for the nation as a whole and for the federal government in particular—without harming people's health. However, achieving large reductions in projected spending would require fundamental changes in the financing and delivery of health care.

As an example of the "fundamental" changes that might do the trick: CBO suggested moving away from the current system of paying doctors and hospitals for performing medical procedures and paying them instead a fixed fee per patient or some other payment based on "value." Another CBO suggestion: "higher cost-sharing requirements." So far we don't see those ideas in the bills being considered.

False: Medicare Benefits Will Be Slashed
The claim that Obama and Congress are cutting seniors' Medicare benefits to pay for the health care overhaul is outright false, though that doesn't keep it from being repeated ad infinitum.

The truth is that the pending House bill extracts $500 billion from projected Medicare spending over 10 years, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office, by doing such things as trimming projected increases in the program's payments for medical services, not including physicians. Increases in other areas, such as payments to doctors, bring the net savings down to less than half that amount. But none of the predicted savings – or cuts, depending on one's perspective – come from reducing current or future benefits for seniors.

The president has promised repeatedly that benefit levels won't be reduced, reiterating the point recently in Portsmouth, N.H.:

Obama, Aug. 11: Another myth that we've been hearing about is this notion that somehow we're going to be cutting your Medicare benefits. We are not.

Is he wrong? Not according to AARP, by far the nation's largest organization representing the over-50 population. In a "Myths vs. Facts" rundown, AARP says:

AARP: Fact: None of the health care reform proposals being considered by Congress would cut Medicare benefits or increase your out-of-pocket costs for Medicare services.

To be sure, Obama hasn't always thought that Medicare "savings" could be accomplished without actual cuts in benefits. Last fall, his campaign ran two television ads accusing Sen. John McCain of wanting "a 22 percent cut in [Medicare] benefits." The basis for the ads was a newspaper article in which a McCain aide said the Arizona Republican would cut Medicare costs. But the aide said nothing about cutting benefits, in fact quite the contrary. We called the claim "false" when Obama made it against McCain, and it's still false now when Obama's critics are making the same accusation against him.

False: Illegal Immigrants Will Be Covered
One Republican congressman issued a press release claiming that "5,600,000 Illegal Aliens May Be Covered Under Obamacare," and we've been peppered with queries about similar claims. They're not true. In fact, the House bill (the only bill to be formally introduced in its entirety) specifically says that no federal money would be spent on giving illegal immigrants health coverage:

H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

Also, under current law, those in the country illegal don't qualify for federal health programs. Of interest: About half of illegal immigrants have health insurance now, according to the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center, which says those who lack insurance do so principally because their employers don't offer it.

"Misleading GOP Health Care Claims" July 23

Sources
Congressional Budget Office. Letter to Rep. Charles B. Rangel. 17 Jul 2009.

Congressional Budget Office. Letter to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. 2 Jul 2009.

U.S. House. "H.R. 3200." (as introduced 14 Jul 2009.)

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. "Advance Care Planning: Preferences for Care at the End of Life." Mar 2003.

"AARP Responds to Health Reform Scare Tactics." Press release. AARP 24 Jul 2009.

Keyserling, Jon. Interview with FactCheck.org 29 Jul 2009.

Patient Self-Determination Act. 42 USC 1395cc.

Collins, Sara. Interview with FactCheck.org. 21 Jul 2009.

"It's Not an Option." Editorial. Investor's Business Daily. 15 Jul 2009.

Orszag, Peter. Letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Office of Management and Budget. 17 Jul 2009.

Congressional Budget Office. Letter to Rep. Steny Hoyer. 25 Jul 2009.

Find this article at
Seven Falsehoods About Health Care Reform | Newsweek Politics | Newsweek.com

© 2009