Covering implementation of President Barack Obama’s health care bill, Lisa Girion reports in the April 5th Los Angeles Times:

One of the rationales for the healthcare overhaul was that it would ease pressure on emergency rooms like St. Joe’s. As more people acquire insurance, the idea goes, more will get regular medical care. But will it work?
The new law also will increase the number of people on Medi-Cal. Because the government health program for the poor pays less than private insurers, hospitals will be pressured to treat more people at lower cost per case, said St. Joe’s chief executive, Barry

… Continue Reading

“Small-business owners unclear on health care impact” reads the March 23rd USA Today headline over a story by Bruce Horovitz and Laura Petrecca. Horovitz and Petrecca do a decent job of talking to small business owners for and against President Barack Obama’s health care law and the even include “A look at some of the provisions and their effects” including:

By 2014, employers who have more than 50 employees must offer health insurance benefits or pay penalties. Companies with 25 or fewer employees who meet certain wage requirements will also be able to get credits toward health insurance purchases.

This is true, … Continue Reading

A number of major media outlets, including a column in The New York Times, a post on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and on Newsweek are reporting that Rush Limbaugh said he would move to Costa Rica if the health care bill passed.

“[F]eel free to remind Rush Limbaugh that he promised to move to Costa Rica if health care reform gets implemented,” wrote Times columnist Gale Collins.

“You might remember Rush Limbaugh’s highly publicized promise that if health-care reform became law, he’d move out of the country.” penned Newsweek’s Liz White. “…Well, Rush, pack your bags.”

But if the writers had … Continue Reading

The March 22nd USA Today article by Richard Wolf and Alison Young titled “Health Care: What You Could See” reports:

The law extracts about $500 billion over 10 years from the future growth rate of Medicare, bringing it down from 6.6% to about 6%, says John Rother of AARP. In doing so, it extends the life of the program for nine years, which relieves some pressure to cut benefits or increase premiums.

This is just false. You can’t take $500 billion from Medicare, use that to fund a brand new entitlement, and then also use that money to say you have … Continue Reading

Covering President Barack Obama’s final push for his health plan, AFP’s Stephen Collinson reported on March 19th:

Democrats are also touting an estimate by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office which says the bill could cut 130 billion dollars from the bloated US deficit through 2019 and 1.2 trillion in the second 10 years.

But the CBO reported no such thing. Here is the report. The $1.2 trillion figure does not appear anywhere in it.

When National Review associate editor Robert VerBruggen asked the CBO whether or not they had arrived at the $1.2 trillion figure, the CBO responded: … Continue Reading

Reporting on the Democrats final push to pass the Senate version of President Barack Obama’s health care plan, Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook write in the March 16th Los Angeles Times:

A group of socially conservative Democrats, led by Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, also continues to threaten to vote against any legislation that would allow women who receive federal insurance subsidies to buy polices that cover abortions, even if they write a separate check to cover the procedure. Stupak and others want to prevent women receiving subsidies from buying any policy that covers abortion.

The last sentence in the … Continue Reading

In a March 9th ABC News piece titled “Why Health Care Costs Keep Rising: What You Need to Know,” Huma Khan identifies five “drivers of cost increases” including: medical technology; administrative costs; disease and aging; medical malpractice; and prescription drugs. This is a decent list; technology and an aging population are definitely big contributors to rising health care costs.

But as Jason Fodeman and Robert Book detail, none of the factors mentioned above are the true driver health care costs:

To a large extent, increased health care spending is a consequence of this third-party payment system. In recent decades, the

… Continue Reading

Julia Baird has an article in Newsweek dated March 11th called “Voice of the Middle Class: Why Wall Street Hates Elizabeth Warren.” It is the puffiest of puff pieces. If you took out the friendly adjectives– “Warren has been transformed from mild-mannered Harvard professor to the sharp-shooting, feisty head of the Congressional Oversight Committee”; “Warren is concise, logical, and angry”—there would be nothing left.

Baird reports that Warren, “in a landmark study, found that more than half of all people who declare bankruptcy cite medical reasons.” That this finding has been fiercely contested—that the balance of evidence suggests that her … Continue Reading

Reporting on the White House’s final push to pass their health care reform bill, Lori Montgomery and Shailagh Murray write in the March 3rd Washington Post:

Reconciliation is a procedure created in 1974 to help lawmakers advance politically difficult budget legislation, particularly measures that reduce the deficit. It has been used 22 times by both parties since 1980 to promote a variety of policies, including overhauling the welfare system, creating COBRA health benefits for people who lose their jobs, and cutting taxes in two huge packages championed by President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003.

This is all true but … Continue Reading

Covering the health summit for Politico, Carrie Budoff Brown asserts under the headline “The big bipartisan lie” on February 25th:

If President Barack Obama really wanted to show he’s serious about winning over Republicans on health care reform, he could offer up some key concessions at Thursday’s summit, like caps on malpractice awards or allowing insurers to sell across state lines.

And if Republicans wanted to reciprocate, they could at least acknowledge the congressional scorekeepers are right — the Democratic plans cut the deficit in the long term and rein in health care costs.

But Brown has her facts wrong. … Continue Reading

In the February 8th New York Times, under the headline Bills Stalled, Hospitals Fear Rising Unpaid Care, Reed Abelson reports:

President Obama says he aims to keep trying. But what happens if the health care legislation cannot be revived, and tens of millions of uninsured Americans continue without coverage?

For the nation’s hospitals, at least, the cost of doing nothing in Washington translates into tens of billions of dollars each year in medical bills that go unpaid by patients with little or no insurance.

Abelson then goes on to report that “The number of people without insurance in this country could increase … Continue Reading

In the January/February 2010 2010 issue of The Atlantic, David Frum writes:

Almost every concept in Obama’s intensely controversial health plan has at one point or another been advanced by a senior Republican, from Bob Dole to Mitt Romney.

Frum appears to buy himself some wiggle room when says “almost ever concept” … but the numbers do not lie. In both the House and Senate versions of the bill, over half of those who gain health insurance do so through a Medicaid expansion.

According to the President’s own Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the House … Continue Reading

Covering the ongoing health care negotiations between the House and Senate, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Steve Greenhouse report in January 12th New York Times:

President Obama told union leaders at a private White House meeting on Monday that he remained committed to taxing high-cost insurance policies as a way to drive down health costs.
…
The 40 percent excise tax would apply to any cost above $8,500 for individual policies and $23,000 for family plans; the Congressional Budget Office has estimated it would generate $149 billion in tax revenues over 10 years, which would help Mr. Obama meet his goal of passing

… Continue Reading

A January 12th Associated Press article carries the headline “Employer health mandate may be dropped” and Erica Werner reports:

The House-passed bill included an income tax increase on individuals making more than $500,000 a year and couples making over $1 million, as well as a requirement for large businesses to cover their workers. The Senate bill contained neither. It included a tax on high-value insurance plans and a modest increase in the Medicare payroll tax. Instead of requiring employers to offer health coverage, the Senate bill penalized businesses if any of their workers obtained government-subsidized health care.

The House and Senate … Continue Reading

Reporting on health care in the December 15th Sacramento Bee Bobby Caina Calvan writes:

But the vast majority of small businesses would benefit from the proposals, according to health advocates.

Most small businesses would be exempt from new payroll taxes and other potential penalties levied against larger firms that choose not to offer health coverage to their employees. At the same time, these small businesses could benefit from subsidies and the new exchange by allowing their uninsured workers to buy insurance from the exchange.

But as Heritage scholar John Ligon details, the subsidies and credits in the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s … Continue Reading

A December 8th Associated Press item by David Espo reports:

At its core, the legislation would expand health care to millions who lack it, ban insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and rein in the rise of health care spending nationally.

The first two items are fine, but the last assertion on cost control is just plain false. Much of the media bought Democrats spin that the recent Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Senate bill showed that proposed health care changes are somehow fiscally responsible. Yet what the CBO actually reported was … Continue Reading

USA Today’s Mimi Hall published a Q&A: Abortion issue and health care bill on November 11th that does a very fair job of addressing the controversy. She could have done a little more though. The piece includes:

Q: What is the history behind the abortion-coverage ban?

A: In 1976, Congress passed a law banning the use of federal funds for abortions. The idea was that taxpayers who oppose abortion shouldn’t have to see their tax dollars used for the procedure. That ban only applies to funds distributed through the annual appropriations for the Health and Human Services Department. Money for new

… Continue Reading

In the November 10 San Francisco Chronicle, Carolyn Lochhead reports on Rep. Bart Stupak’s (D-MI) amendment preventing taxpayer funding for abortions:

The amendment by Bart Stupak, D-Mich., passed 240 to 194, with backing from 64 Democrats, including Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa from the Central Valley, and most Republicans. It expands an existing ban, known as the Hyde Amendment, on public funding for abortion.
…
Days of tense negotiations in Pelosi’s office over an alternative by Rep. Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara, and Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., that would have codified existing law broke down in bitterness and recriminations.

Nowhere does Lochhead justify the claim that … Continue Reading

Erica Werner and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar wrote a November 5th article for the Associated Press on the AARP’s endorsement of the latest version of the House health bill.

Many retirees are concerned about cuts in Medicare payments to medical providers, which will be used to finance an expansion of health insurance coverage to millions of working families who now lack it. Also, AARP says its membership is about evenly divided among Democrats, Republicans and independents, meaning its endorsement in today’s highly politicized atmosphere could anger many members.

This is a good start, but a better report would have noted AARP’s conflict of … Continue Reading

Perry Bacon Jr. reports in the November 3rd Washington Post:

The abortion dispute centers both on federal subsidies that would be provided for people who cannot afford health-care coverage themselves and the much-debated government insurance alternative, which is included in the House version of the bill but is still being debated in the Senate. Under a 1976 law, federal funds are generally barred from being used for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest or to ensure the life of the mother.

This is just plain false. Bacon is in no dount referring to the Hyde Amendment when he mentions the … Continue Reading

The November 2nd Associated Press article by David Espo, AP sources: House health bill totals $1.2 trillion, is a great start at honest reporting on the true costs of the House health care bill. Espo reports:

The health care bill headed for a vote in the House this week costs $1.2 trillion or more over a decade, according to numerous Democratic officials and figures contained in an analysis by congressional budget experts, far higher than the $900 billion cited by President Barack Obama as a price tag for his reform plan.

While the Congressional Budget Office has put the cost of

… Continue Reading

Shailagh Murray and Lori Montgomery report in the October 24th The Washington Post:

Democratic leaders in the Senate and House have concluded that a government-run insurance plan is the cheapest way to expand health coverage, and they sought Friday to rally support for the idea, prospects for which have gone in a few short weeks from bleak to bright.

Murray and Montgomery first note:

In an early estimate of the House bill, the Congressional Budget Office forecast that fewer than 12 million people would buy insurance through the government plan.

This is true, by itself, but then Murray and Montgomery later report:

Because a

… Continue Reading

Associated Press reporter Laurie Kellman’s October 25th article, “Patients—and patience—in health care end game,” contains a big whopper. In an article otherwise devoted to chronicling the political back-and-forth of health care negotiations, she writes:

In a time of lingering recession, there is no more compelling pocketbook issue than health care overhaul. It’s an effort that’s intensely personal because it could affect every American.

How is the statement that health care is the most compelling pocketbook issue facing Americans justified? It’s not. Polling regularly shows the overall economy, job creation, and even deficit reduction are higher priorities than is … Continue Reading

In her October 18th article entitled “Health bills target young-old cost gap”, Washington Times reporter Jennifer Haberkorn suggests that young adults “could have the highest costs to bear but the most to gain under the health care overhaul proposals in Congress.”

Beyond the questionable logic of suggesting that something purchased at a high (indeed “the highest”) price results in “a gain”, Ms. Haberkorn’s implication that reform proposals would benefit young adults in any important way fails to match the reality of either the leading House or Senate bill.

It is true that young adults have the highest rate of being uninsured … Continue Reading

USA Today’s Richard Wolf has a very fair and educational piece in October 19ths USA Today on how Medicaid, S-CHIP expansion plan could hurt states’ budgets. Wolf does an admirable job not only detailing how White House sponsored health reform would bankrupt states, but he also reports on how patients in the Medicaid program still find it hard to access health care. Wolf reports:

Many parts of the country already face an acute shortage of general practitioners, 35% of whom did not accept new Medicaid patients last year, according to the Center for Studying Health System Change. House legislation would

… Continue Reading

The Washington Post’s Alec MacGillis has a Fact Checker item out October 14th purporting to vet studies paid for America’s Health Insurance Plans and Blue Cross Blue Shield, and performed by PricewaterhouseCoopers Oliver Wyman, showing that health insurance premiums for the typical American family would rise $3,000 to $4,000 per year if Obamacare were to become law.

Writing on the individual mandate portion of the bill, MacGillis writes:

There is a lively debate about whether the penalty would goad healthier people to get coverage. But the reports are probably too pessimistic. Massachusetts has gotten all but 3 percent of residents into

… Continue Reading

Reporters are usually not responsible for the headlines over their articles, but the headline over Robert Pear’s and David Herszenhorn’s October 7th New York Times article is simply misleading: “Health Care Bill Gets Green Light in Cost Analysis.” Pear and Herszebhorn do report that the Congressional Budget Office “cost analysis” is on the Senate Finance Committee bill, but then they down play the ramifications of the fact, writing:

Republicans, who are overwhelmingly opposed to the legislation, minimized the significance of the cost analysis. They suggested that the “real” bill would be written secretly by Democratic leaders as they combine the

… Continue Reading

Michael Shear and Ceci Connolly published an article in the October 7th Washington Post titled “Reform Gets Conditional GOP Support” that reports:

Seeking to provide fresh evidence of bipartisan support for health-care reform, the White House is orchestrating a series of endorsements from GOP heavyweights around the country.
…
And in the past two days, former Senate Republican leader Bill Frist; George W. Bush health and human services secretary Tommy G. Thompson and Medicare chief Mark McClellan; California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger; and New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg — a Republican turned independent — have all spoken favorably of overhauling the nation’s

… Continue Reading

The Washington Post’s Keith Richburg published a health care article October 1st asking: “What Makes a Health Plan a ‘Cadillac’?” Richburg reports:

In the scramble to find money to overhaul the health-care system, Senate Democrats have been eyeing the most generous insurance packages — what some call the “Cadillac” plans — as a lucrative target to tax.
…
But as the competing proposals are debated on Capitol Hill, a fundamental challenge has emerged: Few people agree on exactly what constitutes a Cadillac plan.

But then, fifteen paragraphs later we learn:

Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) initially proposed an excise tax of 35 percent

… Continue Reading

Covering the debate in Congress over whether a government-run health program should created under President Barack Obama’s health care plan, the Associated Press’ Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar asserts on September 25th:

The public option continues to enjoy broad support in opinion polls.

Alonso-Zaldivar then completely fails to actually cite any polling data to back up this claim. To better inform his readers, Alonso-Zaldivar ought to check out the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll conducted Spetember 17-20 by Democrat Peter Hart and Republican Bill McInturff.

They asked 1,005 adults: “Would you favor or oppose creating a public health care plan administered by the federal … Continue Reading