Within hours after the House of Representatives approved health-care
reform by a narrow margin, Republicans predicted retribution at the
polls next fall. They promised to make every Democrat regret that
historic vote as the first step toward the reversal of power in
Washington. And as the current debate has proved, they aren’t going to
let honesty become an obstacle.
For a preview of coming attractions, simply turn on Fox News or any
right-wing radio talker, where the falsehoods of the 2010 midterm
campaign are being field-tested today.
You can watch Dick Morris blather about the “death panels” that will
terminate your mother and father while illegal immigrants are provided
lavish care and about how you will be put in jail for failing to
purchase health insurance. You can hear Karl Rove complain that we will
“beggar ourselves” by adding more than $1.4 trillion to the federal
debt. You can listen to Frank Luntz claim that voters disdain reform
because of “the cost to the deficit.”
These gentlemen have little expertise in health or economics but
much experience in distracting, misinforming, and frightening the
public. Aside from talking on television, that is their job. How little
do they know — and how much do they simply fabricate?
It is safe to assume that Morris knows very well there are no death
panels in any of the health-reform bills; that those bills expressly
forbid coverage of illegal immigrants; and that none of them includes
any provision to incarcerate citizens who lack insurance coverage. It
is also reasonable to assume, based solely on the fiscal record of the
Bush administration in which he served, that Rove never worries about
budget deficits, government waste, or gross corruption unless Democrats
are in charge.
As for Luntz, he specializes in political prophecies that are
self-fulfilling. When he says voters are infuriated by the cost of
health-care reform, for instance, that merely indicates he is trying to
make them feel that way. He will succeed — all three will succeed
— only by drawing attention away from actual facts and
figures.
So perhaps voters ought to listen instead to the Congressional
Budget Office, which by contrast has earned a reputation for candor,
accuracy, and nonpartisan truthfulness. After painstaking analysis, the
CBO estimated that the House health-care reform bill, known as the
Affordable Health Care for America Act, would reduce the federal
deficit by about $109 billion during its first 10 years. To repeat: The
bill passed by the House Democrats on the evening of Saturday, November
7th, “would yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $109
billion over the 2010-2019 period.” The CBO experts also costed out the
Senate Finance Committee bill and found that it would cut the federal
deficit by more than $80 billion during that first decade.
Those reassuring conclusions derive from other basic facts about
reform that tend to be ignored or concealed. Reform will reduce
wasteful spending by hundreds of billions of dollars annually and will
depend for financing on excise taxes imposed on the wealthiest 1
percent of the population.
Much of the misinformation about the costs of reform comes from the
belief — fostered by conservatives — that the
government-run health plan known as the “public option” would impose a
huge burden on the federal budget. So says Joseph Lieberman, the
independent senator from Connecticut who has threatened to filibuster
the bill.
Section 322 of the Affordable Health Care for America Act says
clearly and concisely that people insured under the public option will
pay premium rates “at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of
health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and
administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance
option.” In short, the public option will involve no new federal
expenditure.
Any bill that reaches the president’s desk will leave much to be
desired, especially with respect to cost containment, preventive care,
and new systems of compensation to encourage improved results. But it
should be judged according to real merits and defects — not the
delusions and distortions that now dominate the debate.
