Fact-Checking Karl Rove’s Attacks Against The Public Option
Fact-Checking Karl Rove’s Attacks Against The Public Option
Today, Karl Rove penned an editorial in the Wall Street Journal attacking the public health care option. Rove’s ‘myths’ echo the poll-tested talking points of Frank Luntz and other conservatives determined to protect the private insurer’s monopoly over coverage and deny Americans choice. Below is a fact-check of Rove’s assertions. [Download a PDF version.]
Myth 1: A public option is unnecessary.
Myth 2: Private competition in Medicare Part D has reduced costs.
Myth 3: A public plan would shift costs to Americans with private insurance.
Myth 4: A public plan will lead to a welfare state.
Myth 5: The public option is too expensive.
Myth 6: Americans will be forced into a public option.
Myth 7: The public option would put a bureaucrat between you and your doctor.
MYTH 1: A public option is unnecessary: “It’s unnecessary. Advocates say a government-run insurance program is needed to provide competition for private health insurance. But 1,300 companies sell health insurance plans. That’s competition enough.” [WSJ, 6/11/2009]
TRUTH: Insurer and hospital markets are dominated by large insurers and provider systems. Private insurers rarely negotiate with dominant hospital systems and typically pass on the higher costs to beneficiaries in the form of higher premiums. Already, “1 in 6 metropolitan areas in a 2008 study of more than 300 U.S. markets is dominated by a single health insurer that controls at least 70% of consumers enrolled in health maintenance organizations or preferred provider organizations.” Such consolidation negates any real competition. Without it, insurers don’t negotiate prices and boost their profits. In fact, “there have been over 400 health care mergers in the last 10 years,” and premiums have risen “nearly eight times faster than average U.S. incomes.” A public plan could, in an environment of head-to-head competition, push private insurance companies to negotiate more aggressively with providers and dramatically lower health care spending.” [Urban Institute, 10/03/2008; LA Times, 4/09/2009]
MYTH 2: Private competition in Medicare Part D has reduced costs: “The results of robust private competition to provide the Medicare drug benefit underscore [the ability of private competition to lower prices]. When it was approved, the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cost $74 billion a year by 2008. Nearly 100 providers deliver the drug benefit, competing on better benefits, more choices, and lower prices. So the actual cost was $44 billion in 2008 — nearly 41% less than predicted. No government plan was needed to guarantee competition’s benefits.” [WSJ, 6/11/2009]
TRUTH: Medicare Part D beneficiaries have experienced significant cost increases. According to a recent analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows “significant increases in premiums, costsharing amounts, use of specialty tiers, and utilization management restrictions since 2008 that could have important implications for beneficiaries’ access to needed medications and out-of-pocket expenses.” [KFF, 6/2009]
MYTH 3: A public plan would shift costs to Americans with private insurance: “Second, a public option will undercut private insurers and pass the tab to taxpayers and health providers just as it does in existing government-run programs. For example, Medicare pays hospitals 71% and doctors 81% of what private insurers pay.” [WSJ, 6/11/2009]
TRUTH: Private insurer payments promote medical inefficiency. A new public option will change the way the health care reimbursement system so that we pay for value, not volume and reward efficient providers. According to MedPAC, Medicare rates are adequate and consistent with the efficient delivery of services. In fact, over-payments by private insurers to health-care providers drives up overall costs. “Hospitals which didn’t rely on high payment rates from private insurers ‘are able, in fact, to control their costs and reduce their costs when they need to’ and ‘combine low costs with quality.’” [WSJ, 3/17/2009]
MYTH 4: A public plan will lead to a welfare state:“If Democrats enact a public-option health-insurance program, America is on the way to becoming a European-style welfare state.” [WSJ, 6/11/2009]
TRUTH: Americans will choose a public health insurance plan from a menu of different options. The private insurance market isn’t going anywhere. Private insurers will play an important role in providing more integrated coverage options than the public plan and would retain a “brand advantage” (in the same way that a lot of people rather have the branded drug than the generic) for consumers. Private insurers who “offer a superior product through high levels of efficiency, satisfaction in consumer preferences and ease of access to quality medical services” will thrive in a reformed market. [Urban Institute, 10/03/2008]
MYTH 5: The public option is too expensive: “Fourth, the public option is far too expensive. The cost of Medicare — the purest form of a government-run “public choice” for seniors — will start exceeding its payroll-tax “trust fund” in 2017. The Obama administration estimates its health reforms will cost as much as $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. It is no coincidence the Obama budget nearly triples the national debt over that same period.” [WSJ, 6/11/2009]
TRUTH: A public option will lower family premiums. If a public plan is “far too expensive” and has higher premiums, then Americans will not enroll. But if a public plan offers lower premiums, it will motivate private insurers to lower their costs. As a result, health care costs would decrease across the board.
MYTH 6: Americans will be forced into a public option: “Government-run health insurance would crater the private insurance market, forcing most Americans onto the government plan.” [WSJ, 6/11/2009]
TRUTH: The government would not force Americans to purchase coverage from the public plan, but Rove would force everyone under 65 to enroll with a private insurer. Rove is essentially arguing that the public plan would work too well. It would use its inherent efficiencies to lower family premiums and force private insurers to aggressively negotiate on behalf of their beneficiaries.
MYTH 7: The public option would put a bureaucrat between you and your doctor: “The public option puts government firmly in the middle of the relationship between patients and their doctors.” [WSJ, 6/11/2009]
TRUTH: A public option improves the doctor-patient relationship. Existing reform legislation explicitly preserves the doctor-patient relationship. As a draft of the HELP bill notes, “a strong doctor-patient relationship is essential to the practice of medicine, and patents have a right to an effective doctor patient relationships…Doctors, nurses, and other health professional have the right to judge what is best for their patients.” Moreover, the public plan’s payment innovations would reward doctors for providing quality care and spending more time listening to their patients. [HELP Legislation, 6/09/2009]
13 Responses to “Fact-Checking Karl Rove’s Attacks Against The Public Option”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
Karl Rove was a political hack for the Bush White House. As the number of uninsured grew by 10 million on his shift, Rove has nothing substantive to offer on health care reform.
June 11th, 2009 at 7:06 pmMany have said this, likely but MYTH 6: “Americans will be forced into a private option:” should be “”Americans will be forced into a public option:”. OTT you know the stuff…
June 11th, 2009 at 10:01 pmThe only thing that comes out of Karl Rove’s mouth is complete fabrications and lies and if anyone believes him they are just as delusional as what he is. Karl Rove never has completed university and during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s he got deferments so he wouldn’t have to serve in Vietnam. Twice the lying scumbag Karl Rove quit but that is okay according to him though he was to big of a coward like former President George Walker Bush and Vice President Five Time Deferment Dickless Cheney.
Karl Rove has to learn to keep his mouth shut as nobody cares to listen to the pathetic Ahole anymore.
June 11th, 2009 at 10:47 pmThis is pathetic: Rove is recycling recycled ideas. These were new back in the 60’s, and didn’t work even then. Isn’t it time for a nice retirement home?
June 12th, 2009 at 6:42 amMedicare Part D – what a scam by Big Pharma (drug companies). I was talking to a person yesterday who told me that her father-in-law falls into the “donut hole” every other month. His cost for medication is $1500.00/month and that when he falls into this “donut hole”, he skips some of his medication.
June 12th, 2009 at 8:16 amRove has been lying and distorting since he took his first breath. Remember he bugged his own office in his early career and then public blamed it on the opposition. He’s like Lee Atwater redux. His physical appearance apparently mirrors his inner rotteness
June 12th, 2009 at 2:10 pmI think Rove’s article used too many standard Republican scare tactics, but I still can’t support a public plan.
June 13th, 2009 at 9:48 pmWhat needs to be more clearly stated by defenders of the public plan is how we can prevent it from being politicized and subsidized. If we can’t clearly lay out rules preventing this, and I don’t believe we can, then the public plan will ultimately destroy competition, rather than create more of it.
Is your name really Igor Volsky? How did socialized medicine work out where you came from? Have you ever visited a U.S. Veteran’s hospital? Waited to get medical attention? Have you ever been to a U.S. County (government run) emergency room for healthcare? Ever notice they are all broke? Is that what Obama and Hillary want for all of us? (Except themselves, of course, they get to walk right into Walter Reed without a wait.) But then, “Some of us are more equal than others. . . .”
June 14th, 2009 at 5:07 amAs an American living in one of the countries that provides universal health care through the government, I would tell anyone to stop letting idiots like Karl Rove distort such a system. In Denmark, where I live, there is a public and private option. We are here temporarily and have only the public, tax-supported option. I have no problem getting in to see a physician, it is easy and quick to get a referral to a specialist, I can call any morning and talk to an actual doctor, and I feel that care is excellent. What’s to be afraid of, except that the big insurance and drug companies are terrified of losing their monopoly profits.
June 14th, 2009 at 9:35 amYes many government run emergency rooms and hospitals are broke. This is because they are the medical treatment providers of last resort. This is where the uninsured and underinsured are forced to go. A national health insurance plan with a public option will allow these facilities to receive payment for the service they provide.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:15 pmMy spouse has a “public option”–the VA hospital. It has given excellent service, but it’s too far to use all the time. Our local family doctor is covered by private insurance. Their bureaucrats come between us and our doctor’s decisions; too often we have to argue to get the tests we need. Specialists aren’t that easy to see, and we have very little choice. Most of the medical specialists in our town are NOT covered by our insurance, so we have to travel. I can’t imagine that a public option could be worse.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:43 pmThe best way to confuse is to make a bold assertion opposite the truth. This worked in confusing people on Global Warming, Cancer from smoking, role of regulation in financial institutions and, even, whether an airplane could ever fly.
Mr. Karl Rove is the master of the Assertive Look, if he told me two plus two equal five, I might hesitate to confirm. He is the Master Teacher of Con-Jobs, and never blinks.
That the US spends ten times more, per capita, than other nations yet has 14th or 17th rank in longevity, does not bother him at all. He wants to make sure his clients, not the people, are well taken care.
He seems to worry about money, not about health or longevity but, if the money does not improve health, what is the point?
The Bush Administration changed the responsibility for drug testing from the Government to drug dealer, ops, drug maker.
And, we know about who takes best carea for chicken coops.
Like our Financial Institutions, Drug makers need regulation because they have been proven to repeatedly market drugs of higher costs with no comensurate benefits or, even, deadly drugs. They gained control of drug testing and government scientists must believe whatever they write about their drug tests. The worst examples are Neurological drugs, because the patient does not die and the burden is on wealthy families or the unwealthy taxpayer, and they whistle all the way to the bank. How gullible are we? A Millioner Ambassador was talked into letting his daughter have a Lobotomy, the first one ever.
Why bother about drug costs if we don’t know the value of the drug? Yes, I know, we must trust doctors but, what knowledge do they have that is independent of whatever the drug maker said in the all-expense paid vacation, ops, seminar in Bermuda, with the family?
June 17th, 2009 at 1:10 amYes, I know, trust on our doctor is part of the reason we get well. That is the same reason Witch Doctors were succesful for so long. The humban race grew in number and longevity without man-made drugs for most of history, and still does for most of the world.
THE DEBUNKING WAS VERY GOOD AND SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR ALL THE COUNTRY TO KNOW ABOUT.BUT HOW CAN I PRINT OUT JUST THE 7 MYTHS AND THE 7 DEBUNKING RERSPONSES?
June 17th, 2009 at 10:40 pm