Profile
Photos
Comments
More ads claim that Congress is pushing a Canadian or English-style health care bill.
 As a former health care agent, I have written several times on Obama's
health plan; yet people refuse to believe me. They choose instead to
believe commercials from those with an agenda and conservative web
sites full of misinformation.
health plan; yet people refuse to believe me. They choose instead to
believe commercials from those with an agenda and conservative web
sites full of misinformation.
For the last time, Obama's proposed plan would not be based on Medicare or VA plans. It would be based on the government plan for government employees and Congress.
In a nutshell, if the plan gets passed as Obama wants it:
1. Totally voluntarity: One may keep his current coverage if he is happy with it.
2. Low premiums, low deductibles, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions
3. No restrictions on choice of doctors or hospitals (that eliminates waits to see doctors)
4. Affects only those people under Medicare Age.Â
5. No restrictions on what doctors may charge.
Ads Are Misleading People:
– by Lori Robertson
Two ads from related independent groups make claims about an overhaul of the health care system, saying Congress wants a government-run health care system:
Summary:
- One ad claims that “Washington wants to bring Canadian-style health care to >the U.S.†But the health care bills moving through Congress don’t call for a single-payer system like Canada’s, and legislation that does support a purely government-run system is quietly dying in committee.
Obama, too, has said repeatedly that he doesn’t back a conversion to a single-payer system.
 - Another ad, targeting specific members of the Senate, similarly claims that “Congress is rushing to take over health care.†It says that a government health insurance option would cause “tens of millions†to move from their current insurance to a government plan. That claim is on the mark, >according to one study, which found that millions would move from private insurance to a much cheaper government option.
Analysis:
We've written before about conservatives claiming that Congress, or Obama, or Washington, or Democrats in general want the U.S. to have a Canadian-style, government-run health care system. The truth of the matter is that the president has repeatedly said he doesn't.
In fact, since being sworn in as president, Obama has riled advocates of such single-payer systems by largely excluding them from the health care debate.
He has answered several questions from members of the public who asked at town hall events: "why not" have such a system. Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and one of the leaders in drafting legislation, has said bluntly: "single-payer is not going to get even to first base in Congress." Yet, the Canada claims continue.
In an ad airing (for the third time this year) on national cable channels,
a group called Patients United Now says that "Washington wants to bring Canadian-style health care to the U.S."
The group's back-up for the claim? An opinion piece that we previously found to be riddled with errors;
an article from CQ.com that says the National Institutes of Health will >fund comparative effectiveness research studies that examine cost –
which, the article notes, the NIH already does; and another news article in the San Francisco Chronicle that reported conservatives have criticized such research, saying it leads to "rationing," while proponents have said it will improve health care and reduce costs.
As we've said before, the stimulus legislation, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, called for the creation of a council that would coordinate and support comparative effectiveness research, which examines which medical drugs and treatments are most effective, and in some cases, most cost-effective.
The government has funded such studies since the late '70s. In this chart of research funding, the NIHÂ estimates it will have spent $50 million on "cost effectiveness research" each year from 2007 to 2010.
To be sure, the cost factor prompts critics to say the research will lead to the government, or perhaps insurance companies, denying certain medical procedures based on cost alone.
Proponents say such research provides valuable information to the public and physicians on which procedures work best and whether more costly treatments are actually more effective.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009:(forbids any restrictions or even guidelines on care) 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.
Â
