EdLabor Journal

In this morning’s USA Today editorial, they take on myths that continue to surface about health care reform. On July 31, U.S. Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and George Miller (D-CA) released a statement exposing the campaign of misinformation on health care.

USA Today says:

There's an old proverb that says a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still getting its boots on. That's surely true when the lie instills deep personal fears, and lies appear to be in full sprint as the nation's health care debate goes local.

Some August town hall meetings around the country have degenerated into furious shouting matches, driven by outrageous misinformation borne of many sources.

The Internet spreads anonymous chain e-mails to a public that is both vulnerable and gullible. Groups with a financial or ideological interest give the rumors a boost. Talk radio provides an echo chamber for the demonizers. Most outrageously, political leaders who know better and could oppose legislation in a more credible way, engage in their own hyperbole or simply remain silent. One Republican senator, South Carolina's Jim DeMint, simply bypassed the substance of the discussion, saying it was a chance to "break" a popular Democratic president. He has plenty of company that isn't quite as blunt.

We encourage you to continue reading the USA Today editorial and learn more about the America’s Health Choices Act.

The big economic news for today is that the jobless rate has dipped to 9.4% in July, down 0.1% from June.

Employers throttled back on layoffs in July, cutting just 247,000 jobs, the fewest in a year, and the unemployment rate dipped to 9.4 percent, its first decline in 15 months.

Although the unemployment number is still too high, it is headed in the right direction. This improvement is validation that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is working.

Specifically, the Committee is pleased to see the efforts in key areas are working.

• Modernizing our schools and universities – creating green jobs
• Investing in early education
• Helping states prevent teacher layoffs and other critical public sector jobs
• Training workers for 21st century jobs
• Creating service and volunteer opportunities to rebuild America

In today's New York Times' editorial, they applaud the nomination of Dr. David Michaels to lead the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Last week, Chairs Miller and Woolsey also praised the nomination.

Dr. David Michaels, an epidemiologist, is a research professor at the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services. He has conducted numerous studies of the health effects of occupational exposure to toxic chemicals, including asbestos, metals and solvents, and has written extensively on science and regulatory policy.

The New York Times said:
 

President Obama has chosen wisely in picking a respected scientist and safety advocate to head the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration. David Michaels, a research professor and occupational health expert at the George Washington University School of Public Health, seems just the right man to steer the agency back toward an emphasis on protecting workers after eight years of lax oversight and favoritism to industry under the Bush administration.

and

The nomination of Dr. Michaels is apt to provoke opposition from some business interests. They should hold their fire. His emphasis on cultural change and involvement of workers in improving safety could help ease the polarization between business and labor. And his emphasis on sound science could give everyone greater confidence that OSHA will make the right decisions.

There has been an email going around with a line-by-line critique of HR 3200 - the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act. Unfortunately, they are not based in truth, but designed to scare recipients. The email is quite long, so for some of the most egregious distortions of the health insurance reform legislation, please visit the Pulitzer prize-winning fact check site run by The St. Petersburg Times.


Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit the books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!
 

• Page 22 of H.R. 3200 requests a study, not an audit, of the effects to which rating rules are likely to cause adverse selection in the large group market and employer self insurance market insurance market. This does not require an audit of ALL employers that self insure

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benes u get

• Nothing in the bill infringes upon you and your doctor’s ability to make medical decisions.  The National Health Benefits Advisory Council is not a “government committee” but is made up of providers, consumer representatives, employers, labor, health insurance issuers, independent experts and representatives of government agencies.  They will make recommendations about minimum standards of care and covered benefits that insurance companies have to offer- ensuring that everyone has a health plan that provides them with adequate coverage. 

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!

• This is a misreading of the text.  This section limits the amount of out-of-pocket costs you will face to $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 (indexed to CPI) for a family for a basic package of care.  This ensures you have access to affordable care and won’t go bankrupt paying for it.

Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice!

• The Health Choices Commissioner is charged with ensuring insurance plans are meeting regulations and minimum standards as well as administering affordability credits and monitoring the exchange.  Nothing in this section or in the larger bill permits the Health Choices Commissioner to choose your benefits for you

PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided 2 ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise

• This is blatantly false.  This section prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against persons when issuing coverage, and has nothing to do with government subsidized coverage to illegal immigrants.  The bill explicitly states that no Federal payments will be used for affordability credits for illegal immigrants.  (P. 143, sec. 246). 

Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access 2 individuals' finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued!

• This section says nothing about a National ID health card, or accessing your personal financial information.  This section promotes administrative simplification- for example being able to look up your insurance coverage and determine how much you will pay and which provider your insurance will accept, at the point of service.  This saves money and gives you, the consumer, information about what you will owe at the front end, rather than being denied or getting a surprise bill from your insurance company weeks after your treatment.
  

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 ur banks accts 4 elect. funds transfer

• This section encourages the development of standards to encourage electronic payments between providers and insurance companies.  Administrative simplification measures like these save billions of dollars.  Nothing will give the government access to your bank account.

PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan 4 retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).

• This section provides a limited reimbursement for participating employment-based private plans for part of the cost of providing health benefits to retirees (age 55-64) and their families.  People who have been forced into early retirement in this age group do not qualify for Medicare and this will help them stay on their employer provided, private insurance plan if their employer wants to participate.  Participation is voluntary. This is for all early retirees, and no language targets the provision towards unions or acorn.

Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange 2 bring priv HC plans under Govt control.

• The bill imposes new regulations on private health care plans that will force them to end unethical practices such as rescissions or denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.  The Exchange will improve the quality of coverage and increase the affordability of private insurers in the Exchange.
  

PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs 4 priv. HC plans in the Exchange

• Insurance companies in the Exchange will have to offer a basic benefit packages in every service area.  This package will include basic care such as hospitalization, physician visits, medical equipment, mental health, preventative care, maternity and well baby care, and drugs – services that anyone would expect a real insurance policy to cover.  Private insurers may offer a higher tier of coverage with more benefits that are not mandated by the government if they choose.
  

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration ur Healthcare!

• No, this determines the minimum standards insurance companies must offer coverage for- it has nothing to do with rationing.  Private plans can offer extra benefits like dental or vision coverage for adults, or other non-covered benefits that are not included in the basic level plan.

PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic approp svcs. Example - Translation 4 illegal aliens

• The bill requires plans in the Exchange to offer culturally and linguistic appropriate services.  The U.S. is a diverse country culturally and linguistically.  Many legal residents and citizens of the U.S. speak other languages, and implying that everyone of a different culture in the U.S. is here illegally is intolerant and incorrect.  The bill explicitly states that it will not subsidize coverage for illegal immigrants.  (P. 143, sec. 246). 

Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps 2 sign up indiv. for Govt HC plan
 

• The Health Choices Commissioner will conduct outreach and enrollment activities to educate Exchange-eligible individuals and businesses about enrollment in the new Exchange, which includes many private plans along with the public option.  This includes a toll-free hotline, maintenance of a website, creation of outreach materials, and community locations for enrollment.
  

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Ben Levels 4 Plans. #AARP members - U Health care WILL b rationed

• This section has nothing to do with seniors or Medicare. It describes the minimum benefits insurance plans must offer under the Exchange.

CQ Politics ran John Cranford's column yesterday explaining the logic behind the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act.

Two weeks ago, the House Education and Labor Committee, with the strong encouragement of the Obama administration, took a step toward ending the false premise that private lenders are full partners in the federally subsidized college loan program. If a bill approved by the committee becomes law, private lenders will be cut out of this program and will have to stop dining at their taxpayer-provided trough.
....
The lenders have held up the pretense that they provide better service than does an arm of the federal government and that there are actually differences among bank loans, so that students stand to benefit by picking one over the other.

Sorry, but that notion is a sham. Congress has long required that the terms of these loans be identical, regardless of whether they are issued by the government or a private lender. It doesn’t matter to the student where the money comes from — the dollar amounts, the interest rates and even the repayment terms are virtually the same.

For taxpayers, though, there is a difference, and it’s a big one. In the case of presumed “private” loans, the government pays more than it does for “direct” loans — billions of dollars more — because it guarantees the principal amount and it promises a minimal return to the lender. Banks are supposed to be compensated for taking risks, but in the case of government-subsidized student loans, they incur almost no risk. Yet they get compensated anyway.

Moreover, there’s ample evidence that some private lenders have engaged in questionable or worse behavior to persuade colleges to funnel student borrowers their way. When money is free, people will do all sorts of things to get their hands on it. And that raises questions about why lawmakers would want to perpetuate a system that promotes graft, as well as waste.

Learn more about the benefits of the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act and read Mr. Cranford's complete column.

The Wall Street Journal has an article today about how small 401(k) plans often pay big fees. In an effort to ensure transparency, the Committee passed the 401(k) Fair Disclosure and Pension Security Act of 2009 to the House floor in June of this year. This bill will help small business owners like Mr. Maccani:

Some small employers say that it’s difficult to get a handle on exactly what they pay in fees, and that it often requires digging through documents or calling the various parties involved.

Gordon Maccani, chief executive of Digital Telecommunications Corp., in Van Nuys, Calif., says he thought he was paying only $3,600 a year to a third-party recordkeeper to manage his company’s 15-year-old 401(k) plan, which has about $920,000 in assets and 38 participants.

But Mr. Maccani says he recently started reviewing his annual plan statements from Transamerica Retirement Services and noticed there’s an array of other fees paid out of assets, including a 1.2% “contract asset fee,” $8,500 in “charges and fees” and about $1,400 in partner distribution fees. He originally didn’t get a clear answer, he says, when he called the company to inquire. But Transamerica called Mr. Maccani and gave him a comprehensive fee breakdown after being contacted by The Wall Street Journal. The company is a unit of Transamerica Life Insurance Co., owned by Aegon NV, a multinational Dutch insurance firm.

Transamerica’s recently provided breakdown shows Digital Telecommunications’ 401(k) plan actually paid about $16,300 in fees last year.

We encourage you to read the entire article and learn more about the 401(k) Fair Disclosure and Pension Security Act of 2009.

Today U.S. Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and George Miller (D-CA) highlighted the campaign of misinformation being waged by opponents of health insurance reform on a conference call with reporters today.  Independent fact check organizations have shown that opponents of health insurance reform have resorted to making outrageous and misleading claims about the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200), while refusing to engage in a meaningful debate on the policy of reform.

Learn more here.

Congressional opponents of health care reform are claiming that a provision in the America’s Affordable Health Choice Act will start "us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.” This is completely false.

The provision that opponents are alluding to is Section 1233. This bi-partisan provision would allow seniors, if they choose, to have an advanced care consultation with their doctor be paid for by Medicare once every five years, or more frequently if the patient has a life threatening disease. That is all. These consultations include "an explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title."

There is no reasonable basis for believing that a senior’s conversations with their doctor on the range of end-of-life care would do anything to promote euthanasia -- which is illegal in 48 states. Discussions between sick or elderly people and their doctors about end-of-life treatment have long been an accepted part of modern patient care. In 2003, a Bush administration agency issued a 20-page report outlining a five-part process for physicians to discuss end-of-life care with their patients and since 1990, Congress has required health-care agencies to inform patients about state laws regarding advance directives such as a living will.

Which leads to another myth: Patients will be forced to sign a living will. There is no mandate to sign a living will. If a patient chooses to complete a living will, those documents will help articulate a full range of treatment preferences, from full and aggressive treatment to limited, comfort care only.

The Committee wishes these were just the occasional rumor, but, unfortunately, even President Obama was asked these questions yesterday at a town hall. The President responded with, “I think that the only thing that may have been proposed in some of the bills -- and I actually think this is a good thing -- is that it makes it easier for people to fill out a living will.”

The Committee is working hard to ensure that America’s Affordable Health Choices Act works for Seniors, and to ensure that the American people have the facts about how health care reform will help them. The AARP endorses this bill because it includes several key provisions that improve Medicare benefits and health care for seniors, including:

• Protects your access to the doctor of your choice—incenting more family doctors to enter the profession and more doctors to practice in rural areas—and allowing all Americans to keep their current doctor.
• Phases in completely filling in the “donut hole” in the Medicare prescription drug benefit (where drug costs are not reimbursed at certain levels), potentially savings seniors thousands of dollars a year.
• Eliminates co-payments and deductibles for preventive services under Medicare.
• Limits cost-sharing requirements in Medicare Advantage plans to the amount charged for the same services in traditional Medicare coverage.
• Improves the low-income subsidy programs in Medicare, such as by increasing asset limits for programs that help Medicare beneficiaries pay premiums and cost-sharing.
• Computerizes medical records so seniors won’t have to take the same test over and over or relay their entire medical history every time they see a new provider.
• Starts rewarding doctors for the quality, not just the quantity, of care they provide.
• Extends solvency of Medicare by 5 years or more.

Our health care related news of the day is Ezra Klein's op-ed in the Washington Post. He explains how the health care exchange would work and the many benefits to all consumers.

Compared with the crazy-quilt system we have now, the idea behind the health insurance exchange is almost weirdly simple: It's a single market, structured for consumer convenience, in which you choose between the products of competing health insurers (both public and private). This is not a new idea. It is how we buy everything from books to socks to soup. Everything, that is, except health insurance. The benefits of reversing that bit of accidental exceptionalism are obvious to anyone who has ever stepped inside a Target: Consumers will benefit from more choice, from direct competition between insurance providers hungry for their business, from regulations meant to protect them from deceptive products, from efficiencies of scale, and from the sort of purchasing power that only a large base of customers can provide. They will benefit, in other words, from an actual, working market -- something health insurers have managed to avoid for far too long.

But all health insurance exchanges are not created equal. Just as there's a weak and strong version of the public plan, there's a weak and strong version of the exchange.

The strong version is national, or at least regional. It's open to everyone: The unemployed, the self-employed and any business, no matter the size, that wants to buy in. There's risk adjustment to reduce the incentive for cherry-picking. The huge pool of users gives the exchange tremendous advantages in scale, simplicity and standardization (experts say that you need at least 20 million to fully achieve these benefits -- easy in a national exchange but harder in a regional or state-based one). With so many potential customers, insurers are eager to participate, and they will bid aggressively to ensure they're included in the market and compete aggressively to make sure they're successful within it. Over time, the combination of increased efficiencies and greater competition drive down costs, which will lead more employers to use the exchange, which will in turn give it more scale and bargaining power. You could easily see this exchange slowly emerge as the de facto American health-care system. And not through government fiat. Through consumer choice.

The America's Affordable Health Choices Act contains this strong version of the health insurance exchange.

He ends his op-ed with this:

The only way that health-care reform will truly give us a more efficient, more effective, more affordable health-care system is if it begins to fundamentally change the inefficient, ineffective, unaffordable system we have now. The strength of the health insurance exchanges is the key to that transition. That is not to underplay the political or policy challenges. Change is scary. But it's what Obama promised, and it's what the health-care system needs.

We encourage you to read Ezra's complete op-ed as well as learn more about the America's Affordable Health Choices Act.

Stephen Burd at The Higher Ed Watch Blog has a very thorough post about some of the scare tactics from opponents of the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act.Opponents have said that despite the $40 billion dollar increase to Pell Grants, it is a "setback for students" because it removes "the ability for borrowers to choose a lender."

As Mr. Burd so elegantly points out:

If there is anything that we learned from the "pay for play" student loan scandal, it is how little choice borrowers in the FFEL program actually have. Don't forget that in 2007, the Education Department found that one lender made at least 80 percent of students' federal loans at 921 participating colleges. That same year, the research firm Student Marketmeasure reported that 1,412 FFEL schools had one loan provider that made 80 percent of their students' federal loans, with 531 of those colleges recommending only a single lender to their students. What kind of a choice is that?

and as Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY), a former Provost of Southampton College where he worked for 29 years, said at the markup of the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, "I never once encountered a student who was focused on choice. What they were focused on was 'Can I get the money?' and 'Can you guarantee me that I can get the money?'"

We encourage you to read Mr. Burd's complete post as well as learn more about the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act.