Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Sunday, Nov. 1, 2009 | 2 a.m.
Sun Archives
Sun Coverage
Beyond the Sun
Nevadans may have thought the big campaign ended last November, but their TVs are telling them otherwise.
The state has become a key battleground for one of the most expensive — and consequential — public policy debates in history: health care reform. Seven advocacy groups on both sides of the issue have spent more than $1.1 million in Nevada over the past month on ads, hoping to influence voters and pressure lawmakers. The spots have run more than 2,400 times during that period, mostly in Las Vegas, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, a nonpartisan research organization.
For the year, spending on ads to influence the debate has totaled $3.8 million. The pro-reform Americans for Stable Quality Care — a coalition of the American Medical Association and the pharmaceutical industry lobby, among others — has led the spending at $1.2 million.
The reason for the attention: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a pivotal player in the health care debate in Washington, and he faces a potentially tough reelection campaign next year.
Most of the ads airing here push for reform.
“Most of these groups are trying to help (Reid) and prop him up,” said Evan Tracey, president of the Campaign Media Analysis Group. “On the other side of the coin, they are sending a message: We could be back in the fall, for you or against you, whatever you need.”
After months of legislative wrangling, both houses of Congress are poised for a floor debate. Democrats say reform is needed to make health care more affordable and accessible to those who have insurance, and provide coverage for millions of Americans who don’t. Republicans warn that the legislation will slash Medicare along the way and saddle taxpayers with huge new financial obligations.
Below, a vetting of the most prominent ads on the issue.
On potential for cuts in Medicare Advantage
What the ad says: Congress is asking the 10 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage to pay “more than their fair share,” as it seeks to cut $100 billion from the popular program. Citing the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the spot says the cuts will hit many seniors hard.
Who’s behind it: The Coalition for Medicare Choices, a project of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the national association representing nearly 1,300 insurers.
Is it accurate? Congress is proposing nearly $500 billion in Medicare cuts, with the single largest cut coming from Medicare Advantage, which allows seniors to use their Medicare benefits to buy coverage from a private insurance company.
If costs aren’t reduced, Medicare is projected to become insolvent in 2017. Lawmakers want to trim as much as $150 billion from Medicare Advantage, because, although many plans in the program provide extra coverage for vision, dental and other services, the program pays insurance companies higher reimbursements and costs the government 14 percent more per person than standard Medicare.
Congress points to studies that show seniors enrolled in traditional Medicare pay higher premiums to cover the additional costs of Medicare Advantage.
The Congressional Budget Office has found that the Senate Finance Committee bill would reduce payments to private Medicare Advantage plans by $117 billion over 10 years. The budget office’s director has said the cuts would, in fact, result in some benefit cuts to seniors in that program — but only to the extra benefits insurers provide under Medicare Advantage. Core benefits would remain untouched.
On making insurance more affordable
What the ad says: Reform legislation would give tax credits to more than 457,000 middle-class Nevadans and more than 32,000 small businesses to make health insurance more affordable. Families would not be denied coverage for preexisting conditions. Health care decisions will be made by you and your doctor.
Who’s behind it: Americans for Stable Quality Care, a coalition of the American Medical Association, PhRMA (the pharmaceutical industry lobby), the Federation of American Hospitals and Families USA (a health care advocacy group), among others.
Is it accurate? The sole source of the information in the ad is healthreform.gov, the Obama administration’s official government Web site for health legislation. Citing the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, the government says that between 377,100 and 457,000 middle-class Nevadans will be eligible for tax credits to “ease the burden” of health care premiums, which it says have risen 61 percent since 2000. The site also says the state’s 32,066 small business operators will benefit from tax credits to make insurance more affordable.
Preventing insurance companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions, such as diabetes or high blood pressure, has been a signature feature of the reform legislation.
The statement about health care decisions being between you and your doctor, seems to addresses the widely dispelled claim by some Republicans that “death panels” and government bureaucrats would lord over health care decisions.
On donations to Ensign, his public option stance
What the ad says: Sen. John Ensign has taken $874,000 in campaign contributions from the health insurance industry — and then voted against “lowering health care costs” and a public option to compete with private insurers.
Who’s behind it: Health Care for America Now, a coalition of more than 1,000 member-based organizations, including the AFL-CIO, NAACP, MoveOn.org, the Center for American Progress and the Service Employees International Union.
Is it accurate? As for the campaign contributions, the group cites the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tallies elected officials’ donations by industry. Where the $874,000 figure comes from is unclear, but the center notes that over the course of his career, Ensign has received $984,936 from “health professionals,” $629,466 from “insurance,” $313,980 from “pharmaceuticals/health products,” $244,804 from “health services/HMOs” and $234,379 from “hospitals/nursing homes.”
The second claim references Ensign’s Sept. 29 vote in the Senate Finance Committee against amendments to add the public option to health legislation. Democrats have argued that a Medicare-like public option would force private insurers to compete for all the new business that health care reform would create, thus leading to lower costs. Ensign has joined his fellow Republicans in fighting the proposal, saying it’s a “slippery slope toward … a complete government-run takeover of our health care system” and that it would force private insurers out of business.
On Ensign’s actions to ‘protect Medicare’
What the ad says: Sen. Ensign is “fighting to protect Medicare,” voting against a plan that would raise premiums for Medicare drug coverage by as much as 20 percent, and working to make health care more affordable for seniors and their families, making sure they have access to prescriptions “without red tape or government restrictions.”
Who’s behind it: Medicare Today, a project of the Healthcare Leadership Council, a coalition of CEOs from all sectors of the health industry, including insurers, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies.
Is it accurate? The ad cites an Aug. 28 Congressional Budget Office letter, which states that under health reform legislation, average premiums for Medicare Part D beneficiaries would rise by about 5 percent in 2011 and 20 percent in 2019.
The ad ignores, however, that one reason for those increases is to close the so-called doughnut hole, or gap in prescription drug coverage under Medicare. “In return for those higher premiums, enrollees would receive greater protection against incurring high drug costs,” the CBO wrote.
On Reid and whether public option passes
What the ad says: Lee Slaughter, a Las Vegas nurse, says she’s taken care of patients for nearly 20 years and watched private insurance companies “cut off care” for many of them. Now, she says she broke her hips and her insurer won’t cover all her care. The costs, she says, could soon bankrupt her family. A “typical swing voter,” Slaughter says she’s watching to see whether Sen. Harry Reid is “strong and effective enough” to include a public option in health legislation.
Who’s behind it: The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a liberal advocacy group working to elect “bold progressive candidates.”
Is it accurate? Nothing much to vet here. The ad is intended to pressure the Senate majority leader. The spot is linked to a Research 2000 poll the group funded showing 54 percent of Nevadans favor a “government-administered health insurance plan — something like Medicare … that would compete with private health insurance plans.”
On potential for tax on juice drinks and soda
What the ad says: A woman coming home from the grocery store expresses outrage at a potential federal tax on juice drinks and soda. “They say it’s only pennies,” she says, “well those pennies add up when you’re trying to feed a family.”
Who’s behind it: Americans Against Food Taxes, a coalition of beverage industry groups, including major soft drink manufacturers and retailers.
Is it accurate? A group of prominent doctors, scientists and policymakers is pushing the idea of taxing soft drinks, energy drinks and many juices, both to help offset the costs of implementing health care reform and curb the nation’s obesity problem. The group published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that said a tax of a penny an ounce on sugary beverages would raise $14.9 billion in its first year.
For all the ad’s urgency, the idea faces formidable opposition in Congress. Many members have voiced strong opposition and potential supporters have said little more than they would be willing to consider it.
On Reid and his actions on health care reform
What the ad says: Sen. Harry Reid is working with Democrats and Republicans “toward consensus (on) bipartisan health care reform, fighting to make health care coverage more affordable, close the doughnut hole without raising premiums on seniors and make sure no one can be denied coverage for a preexisting condition.”
Who’s behind it: PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry lobby, and Families USA, a health care consumer advocacy group.
Is it accurate? The ad doesn’t say much, coming off more like a campaign spot for Sen. Reid’s reelection. Most of the claims mimic the goals of Democrats: making health care more affordable and accessible.
The drafting process for health care legislation, however, has hardly been bipartisan. Republicans are entrenched in their opposition to the sweeping reform Democrats are proposing. A bill emerged from the Senate Finance Committee with one Republican vote, that of Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe. She announced last week that she would oppose the bill Reid is promising to bring to the floor, one with a public option.
Great job on this article, LV Sun.
it really is very simple...
you either support the public option...
or...
you support the greedy pig insurance companies and their very real death panels and the money grubbing whore doctors...
period...
end of story...
The solutions are simple like Birdie says. Take away the anti trust protection that insurance companies have . The only other group in America who has this protection is Major League Baseball.
True reform and stopping the abuses of insurance companies against the public is a true public option supported by premium payers. Competition is the only way to stop the abuses and monoply enjoyed by insuarance companies. It would help if the lobbyiests were taken out of the picture and politicians who take insurance companies lobbyiests money were exposed for what they are and how they vote. Johnny Boy Ensign has some explaining to do.
"you support the greedy pig insurance companies and their very real death panels and the money grubbing whore doctors...
period"
So if Democrats come up with a bill that does not have the public option then you going to say that they support greedy pigs.
Interesting.....
I doubt that you will say that because often the leftist have proven to be 110% pure hypocrites.
Forced Health Insurance Costs Will Damage Housing Market/Related Employment:
Obama Forced Health Insurance with or without a Public Option is unaffordable for many Americans. Has Sen. Harry Reid considered the economic damage Forced Health Insurance Costs and Penalties will cause Americans? Millions of families that cannot afford to pay both forced health insurance and their home mortgage or rent, will have to pay Opt-Out penalties with money they might need for medical expenses. Citizens caught in this Catch 22 which there may be millions, will not be considered poor for federal assistance to buy health insurance. Middle class home buyers stabilize the housing market, but many will have to Opt-Out buying health insurance to eliminate that debt, to qualify for mortgages. The Obama government pumped up the housing market with billions of Tax Dollars and home buyer incentives. But forcing expensive health insurance and preceding taxes on Americans will disqualify home buyers needed to support home selling prices/property values that secure trillions in bank mortgages. Historically fewer home buyers has lowered home selling prices and caused a reduction in property taxes--forcing local governments to layoff workers and ask federal agencies for money; increasing federal deficits. Stagnate or declining home sales generally cause increasing unemployment in construction, manufacturing, financial institutions and other industries dependent on a stable housing market.
The White House's "sweeping reform" appears to be more like a federal government takeover of our health care system.
Nobody has been able to me as to where the 500 billion dollar cut to Medicare will come from. That's because they will have to cut services to our senior citizens...
Meanwhile, as the White House is still pondering their lack of leadership in making a decision about Afghanistan, the economy, housing, financial, employment and tax and trade. The President is out campaigning...
We need the public option. It would save money in the long run by providing preventative care instead of just emergency care. Giving someone 500$ in heart medication would not only have a higher chance of saving their life, but could also avoid 50,000$ in heart surgery that the tax payer has to eat.
The current system not only wastes money, but also wastes life. It feels like conservatives are just holding onto objectivism just for the hell of it. Newsflash: Objectivism will never be compatible with a 21st century medical system.
It's a pipe dream that a public option would save money in the long run or even in the short run.
If it was just a great money saver, why are they going to cut Medicare 500 billion to help pay for it???
It does not save money in the short run. It saves vast quantities of money in the long run. Go look at Canada's healthcare system. The life expectancy is higher and the system as a whole is cheaper.
Medicare might go bankrupt in a few years because of the baby boomers reaching retirement age. Having a public option 40 years ago were everyone pays into one large system would have prevented medicare from going bankrupt by securing extra cash earlier. The baby boomers brought this on themselves when they didn't do reform earlier. My generation doesn't want to make the same mistake.
Conservatives are always saying that future generations will be burdened by debt. Now that some of us are doing something about it by preventing future debt, you stand in the way and say no. Hypocrisy at it's finest.
The only advocacy ads missing are the ones from the taxpayers. The ads should ask the question, "How will we Americans pay for this"?
The current political leadership in Washington is corrupt and deaf on this question, can anyone say national bankruptcy!
Sgt Rock Some more right wing bs from you without any facts to back it up. These wonderful Republicans who are supposed to be looking after all Americans said Social Security and Medicare were socialist programs that would bankrupt America when they were started . How many retirees have been saved by these 'bad ' programs ? The problem is Eisenhower started borrowing from these programs along with other administrations and never bothered to pay the money back. It has been dream of the right wing to destroy these programs for decades now. Their answer was people should save for their retirement on their own. This was a good idea intil Bush told Americans the economy was strong sixty days before the largest fiancial crisis since the thirties. Just to think Bush and Cheney wanted to turn the whole Social Security program over to their banking buddies,as a reward for all of the political donations, before Americans got smart and said no. I am amazed at people who are now worried abourt debt when Bush spent America into the tank. Where were they when he told lie after lie for eight years. Speaking of getting slapped around the true conservatives in the Republican Party were sickened by his agenda, which failed on every turn, not to mention the millions of lives lost.John Ensign was right there with Bush when he was not cheating on his wife and his faith. All of the right wing know it alls are now worried about costs. What have been the costs to bankrupt hospitals,doctors and families at the expense of crooked insurance companies. Not one GD Republican will talk about the consequences of bankruptcy to our society, just what Fox News,Rush and the neo cons who have sold their souls to insurance lobbyiests tell them to think.When Rep Boehener'soffice was contacted about bankruptcies their answer was everyone files bankruptcy in America. Thats leadership.
Yes SGt Rocko with your veteran benefits intact you should be made aware there are some blue dog Democrats in that sold out crowd too. Think,do some research before you want to sound like Rush the drug addict.
mar1oo Where were you and your wisdom eight years ago? Disgusting.
wizard od Ox Millions upon millions were saving for their retiement and believed Bush when he said the economy was strong,sixty days before they lost most of their life savings. What planet have you been on? You have the nerve to say people deserve to starve? You need immediate mental health help There is something terribly wrong with you.I am not a fan of public education but I damn sure don't want you teaching anyones children anything.I prefer you to be on another plane .
Public Option is the only way out of this
If you can't blame it on Bush, then...
It's a pipe dream that a public option would save money in the long run or even in the short run.
If it was just a great money saver, why are they going to cut Medicare 500 billion to help pay for it???
Now Larry Vegas is just spamming the comments.
The internment camps are almost completed. Soon the Glen Becks of this world will no longer be a facter. If I was a dittohead,I would go into hiding.
Seems like Homer is already kicking into hypocrisy mode.
" Social Security and Medicare were socialist programs that would bankrupt America when they were started "
You probably are clueless that the Medicare board of trustees have declared that Medicare has a $70 trillion unfunded liability.
Krases...
I am trying to get one of you Obama Health Care supporters to inform me as to where the 500 billion in proposed cuts to Medicare will be coming from...
Don't know do you???
And probably don't care...
I can tell you...
Senior citizens on Medicare will pay for it in reduction of their benefits...
I thought all you need is love, love, love is all you need.
LarryVegas, there is an interesting article at FactCheck.org on the subject of Medicare cuts. There are cuts, but not to the drastic extent of $500 billion. It's more like $219 billion over 10 years. Not good, but not the exact claim you keep repeating.
djeco... That's not my claim.
"Despite no official details, WaPost word is that $500+ billion will be cut from Medicare. Obama himself, actually, said last week that the plan is to cut Medicare by $500-600 billion."
The WSJ adds... "The Congressional majority wants to pay for its $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion health bills with new taxes and a $500 billion cut to Medicare. This cut will come just as baby boomers turn 65 and increase Medicare enrollment by 30%. Less money and more patients will necessitate rationing. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 1% of Medicare cuts will come from eliminating fraud, waste and abuse."
Didn't say it was your claim. I said it was a claim you kept repeating. Just thought you'd be interested in an unbiased report for once.
ALL AMERICANS WILL BE FORCED TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE IN THE NEW BILL !!
pg 268
TITLE IV - SHARED RESPONSIBILITY
Subtitle A - Individual Responsibility
SEC. 401. INDIVDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
"For an individuals responsibility to obtain acceptable coverage, see section 59B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by section 501 of this act)"
Leads To
pg 296 - 297
TITLE V - SEC. 501
TAX ON INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE
and here it is folks.... IRS taxes you 2.5% of your annual salary as a health care tax if you do not have CONTINUOUS coverage all year long.. thus MAKING you get health insurance.
What about people that never get sick and dont see the doctor at all ????
READ IT FOR YOURSELF
http://documents.nytimes.com/the-house-s...
It's kinda like getting automobile insurance when you don't own a car...
Reform must start over; current reform efforts are using government's advantages to force consumers and employers to pay even more money which will then be given to insurers and hospitals that have a long history of failing to serve us fairly.
Nobody can collect the money to pay for health care as cheaply as the government can through a national sales tax, and nobody can deliver high quality care and medications as cost effectively as the VA.
Two choices should be offered to everyone to use either; free public health care, no insurance, no co pays, free period, sales tax funded, delivered from a new system of government owned and operated hospitals, using the VA format, which would provide all government funded care, or alternatively consumers could choose to purchase private insurance and private care.
Employers could turnover health care to government.
We would save hundreds of billions annually being morally fair.
Free, free, free... that's the ticket. And while your at it, have ACORN administer the free program.
Sounds a lot like Cuba's medical system...
Wow - the article was interesting and balanced - the comments produced lots of heat and little light - ok, as for medicare cuts - according to a recent 60 minutes article fraud is horriffic in medicare - so likely the increase of fraud control staff would save billions - that is one source which would have a net positive effect. ACORN? that is a new word for we don't like progressives and minorities. We need to learn to talk to each other and move forward.
If there is so much waste and fraud in medicare, why wasn't it taken care of as soon as it was discovered? Our elected officials should be arrested on fraud charges themselves if they know there is fraud in medicare and are not doing anything about it. Maybe kickbacks in the form of political contributions from those committing fraud???
Our elected officials need to quit talking about the problem and move forward in correcting the problem...
homing pidgeon, (like that, two birds, one stone)
Get off the roof and stop pooping everywhere. We get it, you think anybody not standing in line to give you a handout is evil.
Guess what, the blaming of Bush will end one day and your keyboard will explode.
Homer, you blame Bush but give a wide berth to BFrank and his ilk, typical lib.
Personal note; go after Ensign all you want, that guy is the same kind of pimp Harry is. Harry needs twenty five MILLION to run for re-election and you chumps are whining about your lot. Go after that, that's the real money.
The ONLY charity that government should be involved with is burial for the poor, and that only as a matter of sanitation.
There is far too much value put on human life.
LOL, you liberals have no clue and you're dumb enough to believe anything your party tells you, you're mindless pathetic trolls. You want freebies but you don't want tort reform, this alone shows how stupid the Democrats are; read.
http://quitamlawyer.clarislaw.com/settle...
http://oig.hhs.gov/publications/docs/sem...
You ask, what is a Qui tam?
Qui tam (Black's Law Dictionary pronunciation: kway taem) is an abbreviation from the Latin "qui tam pro domino rege quam pro sic ipso in hoc parte sequitur" meaning "who as well for the king as for himself sues in this matter."
Black's Law Dictionary defines a qui tam action as "an action brought by an informer, under a statute which establishes a penalty for the commission or omission of a certain act, and provides that the same shall be recoverable in a civil action, part of the penalty to go to any person who will bring such action and the remainder to the state or some other institution."
Qui tam is a provision of the Federal Civil False Claims Act that allows private citizens to file a lawsuit in the name of the U.S. Government charging fraud by government contractors and others who receive or use government funds, and share in any money recovered.
This unique law was enacted by Congress in order to effectively identify and prosecute government procurement and program fraud and recover revenue lost as a result of the fraud.
The qui tam provision has had the effect of privatizing government legal remedies by allowing private citizens to act as "private attorneys general" in the effort to prosecute government procurement and program fraud. Although most of the early successes in qui tam actions have been against defense contractors, more and more actions are being filed that involve other governmental agencies such as Health and Human Services, Environment, Energy, Education, NASA, Agriculture and Transportation.
Any you want a public option, the above alone shows me how stupid you liberals are and that your only goal is to destroy America from within.