While politics often oscillates between being a source of extreme optimism and being a source of tragic disillusionment, it seems that many people in politics are used to such vicissitudes, and are immune to the emotional effects that accompany them. Indeed, I once thought I was capable of abstracting personal feelings from the polemics of the democratic process. Unfortunately, after attending Congressman John Dingell’s August 7th town hall meeting in Michigan, I was dislodged from my emotional indifference to the natural ebb and flow of politics and thrust into a whirlwind of so-called political passion. As I stared blankly at the unruly crowd, which was screaming at the representative who was given no opportunity to answer questions that were posed by interested voters, I observed what seemed to me as a failure of the democratic process.
While I will not claim the oft-stated opinion that the groups who attend town hall meetings with the sole intention of disrupting the meetings are working wholly and unquestionably against the democratic process, the meeting did leave me with a couple of observations: 1) There is a wealth of misinformation concerning health care reform; and 2) Those who are perpetuating such misinformation are in no way heroic and are in no way political martyrs; instead they are largely responsible for the breakdowns in the democratic process that plague town hall meetings nationwide.
The three most egregious myths about HR 3200 – the public-option health care bill – are the following:
Myth 1: The bill will allow illegal immigrants to get free coverage.
Section 246: “No Federal Payment for Undocumented Aliens. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.” As I am quoting the bill directly, there is no additional analysis needed.
Myth 2: The bill will pressure elderly citizens to end their lives prematurely.
Section 1233: “Provides coverage for consultation between enrollees and practitioners to discuss orders for life-sustaining treatment. Instructs CMS to modify ‘Medicare & You’ handbook to incorporate information on end-of-life planning resources and to incorporate measures on advance care planning into the physician’s quality reporting initiative.” The consultations are not mandatory and will only provide information requested by the patients. Again, I am merely quoting the bill directly.
Myth 3: Private insurance and employer-based coverage will cease to be offered.
Section 102: “Protecting the choice to keep current coverage: (a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met: (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT- (A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1. (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day. (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS- Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1. (3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES- The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.” This is a lot to swallow, but I included the exact and complete text so that it can be referenced accurately. The above shows that, conditional on continuing to meet basic standards, largely those that exist already, existing private insurance and employer-based coverage will be permitted.
A discussion of the merits and costs of the bill is outside the scope of this article; in explaining the aforementioned myths I hoped only to demonstrate that there are commonly-held beliefs that directly contradict the text of the bill. It would undoubtedly be the case that a bill that ensures illegal immigrants using taxpayer dollars, promotes euthanasia, and strips individuals of existing coverage would be detrimental and inhumane; the reality is, however, that such a bill does not exist. In order to have a meaningful discourse concerning health care reform, we need to hold accountable those self-proclaimed entertainers and pundits who are actively espousing misinformation concerning the bill. If we are able to to so, then we might be able to once again hold town hall meetings that provide a forum for constituents and representatives to discuss the bill on the basis of bill’s terms and to modify the bill as to garner the support of the electorate.
Related Posts- Three of Obama's Broken Campaign Promises – How Egregious are They Really?
- There's No Such Thing As Free Emissions Reductions
- Iranian Election Irregularities, Impact on U.S. Relations
- Can We Trust Google? A Review of American Anti-Trust Law
- New Band-aids Replacing the Old: The Real Effect of Federal Bailout Money on Education
- Dave Ramsey Town Hall for Hope
- Health Care Reform - Personal Reality Check
- Bloomberg News - Obama Seeks to Rally Senate Democrats on Final Health-Care Plan
- Green Building Materials
- Health-Care Reform Scares, Lies & Bogeymen
Tags: democratic process, health care reform, heath care, obama administration, obama town hall, town hall meetings
