Kentucky Health Workers Pitch Obamacare At State Fair Alongside Corn Dogs, Fried Kool-Aid

Want A Corn Dog With Your Obamacare?
|

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- A middle-aged man in a red golf shirt shuffles up to a small folding table with gold trim, in a booth adorned with a flotilla of helium balloons, where government workers at the Kentucky State Fair are hawking the virtues of Kynect, the state’s health benefit exchange established by Obamacare.

The man is impressed. "This beats Obamacare I hope," he mutters to one of the workers.

“Do I burst his bubble?” wonders Reina Diaz-Dempsey, overseeing the operation. She doesn't. If he signs up, it's a win-win, whether he knows he's been ensnared by Obamacare or not.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- Obamacare -- totals 974 pages, and in the popular imagination is several times longer. How the complex law unfolds could very well determine the winner of Kentucky's high-stakes 2014 Senate race pitting Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) against Democratic upstart Alison Lundergan Grimes -- and along with it control of the upper chamber.

But Diaz-Dempsey has managed to distill it all down to three sentences.

We are Kynect -- part of the new health care law.

Do you know anyone who doesn’t have health insurance?

You may qualify for Medicaid or a tax credit based on your income.

Reina Diaz-Dempsey

Diaz-Dempsey brought her pitch on Tuesday morning to the Kentucky State Fair. At 44, she is direct, even pleading, as she leans her slight frame against the table, inching closer to fair-goers driving rented scooters and wearing church T-shirts. She isn't just competing against the sizzle of deep-fried Kool-Aid (funnel cake dough flavored with the powdered drink mix) and Krispy Kreme donut burgers ("Fresh -- Never Frozen" the sign beckons) from just outside Freedom Hall. She is up against the state's history of poor health and limited choices, Appalachian poverty and conservative orthodox. Diaz-Dempsey, a public health worker for 19 years, has waited a long time for this moment, even if she has to jockey with the chocolate corn dog guy for attention.

At first, Diaz-Dempsey says, she was overwhelmed by the hordes. All of her study on the issues got her tongue-tied. The policy analyst had to become a carnival barker. "All right," she thought to herself. "Okay, what are we telling them?"

In 40 days, Obamacare heatedly, controversially, launches in Kentucky. Diaz-Dempsey must move beyond the debates over the legislation and start selling it. I explain Diaz-Dempsey’s mission to a spokesman for a massive Kentucky hospital chain at a booth nearby “Good luck with that," he smirks.

But Diaz-Dempsey has a secret weapon: tote bags, designed with a tableau of Kentucky residents under a bright sun and the Kynect logo. The state had spent millions establishing the exchange, staffing up outreach, and conducting market research that included holding a dozen focus groups in Louisville, Paducah and London, according to Gwenda Bond, assistant communications director with the Cabinet for Health and Family Services. The respondents, according to the final focus-group report, felt the logo designs were “comforting,” “hopeful” and “reassuring.” The bags stuck to that theme. They showed only one obese character.

Diaz-Dempsey and company cannot hold onto the bags. At a recent Louisville Bats minor league game, Kynect staff say they handed out 600 bags in 20 minutes (“It was Bobblehead Night too.”). In less than seven days at the fair, they've given out roughly 15,000 bags. Kentucky voters may hate the idea of government handouts for the uninsured, but they had their hands out for these tote bags. With each bag, Diaz-Dempsey and her staff drop packets of information on signing up for Obamacare into outstretched hands.

On Oct. 1, the health exchanges, a central component of Obamacare, will open up for business across the country. For the exchanges to provide affordable, dependable coverage, millions of the uninsured need to sign up. As the deadline approaches, Republicans led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) are threatening a government shutdown in a quixotic attempt to stop implementation. House leaders are eyeing using the debt ceiling to hobble Obamacare.

In Kentucky, the stakes are high. The long political career of McConnell, a strident Obamacare opponent, may hinge on the success or failure of the rollout. "It could backfire on him," says Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) of McConnell's leading opposition to the health care reforms. "I could see next July, August, September people waking up, saying, 'You know he lied to us about this.' I think that's going to be the case."

By late morning, the crowd grew into a line 18-deep. They lurched up wearing XXL fanny packs, ball caps that let you know what war they fought in, and faded XXL shirts that sermonized across the chest “Dixie Heritage Be Proud of Your Past" looking for the bags. But Diaz-Dempsey had a rule: Listen to her three-sentence pitch and only then will she hand over the swag.

The coveted Kynect tote bags.

When an elderly man cut in line and pulled at her stack of bags, she gripped the tote bags even tighter. She wasn't letting go. Finally the man, wearing a trucker hat, red shorts, and white tube socks, slunk away, headed toward the dull, corporate swag being handed out by the health care company Humana.

The crush of people don't greet Diaz-Dempsey with tea party dogma or amateur constitutional scholarship. No one is there to complain about the individual mandate or heckle about death panels. They have questions.

They wonder if they could get coverage despite having a pre-existing medical condition, how much it will cost them. They ask if Indiana has a similar program, or if this was only for Kentucky. Could they just enroll their child? They talk about their sons and daughters, neighbors going without health care, and ask about the subsidies.

The vast majority are relieved to learn about the health exchange. Linda Parrish, 47, showed up at the table and gushed to Diaz-Dempsey: "This is what I've been waiting on." Parrish has health insurance, but her best friend doesn't.

Regina Rice, 47, on a school field trip with her son and his classmates with special needs, had sought out Diaz-Dempsey not so much for the tote bag, but for the information tucked inside it. “I’m praying that it helps us,” Rice says, adding that she has prayed for Obamacare. "I prayed to God to get our people in the right direction to help poor people. I think they are going in the right direction."

Rice says she hasn’t had insurance for close to 10 years. Rice, a Democrat, left her state job to care for her children, including her son with cerebral palsy. Her husband, a self-employed house painter, can’t afford coverage. Now, she says, the phone rings off the hook from bill collectors demanding payments on their $20,000 in medical debt from her husband's chronic back pain and a knee surgery, and her migraines. “We can’t even file for bankruptcy,” she says. The cost to file is out of reach.

At the end of June, Rice says she blacked out in a store. The ambulance ride and emergency room totaled another $2,000 she doesn’t have. Diabetes runs in her family; she worries that she has it, too. It’s been years since her last pap smear and mammogram. If she had cancer, she wouldn’t know it. “I worry about that every day,” she says. “What do you do? I cry a lot.”

Rice begins to tear up. Her daughter wants to move on to other attractions. Rice gathers herself and walks away, clutching her new tote bag. That night when she came home, she went over the Kynect materials with her husband. She's worried that she can't afford it. Her husband told her, "All we can do is apply. If God wants us to get it, we'll get it."

THE NONBELIEVERS

During the two days that I attended the fair, Secretary of State Grimes was the one Kentuckian immune to the gravitational pull of Kynect totes.

Alison Lundergan Grimes at the state fair.

Grimes made a late-morning appearance on Monday for an informal grip-and-grin with veterans at her secretary of state booth. She hugged old ladies and high-fived kids, offering facts. She encouraged veterans to sign a board that would then be displayed at schools across the state. The goal, she told one supporter, was “to show the importance of civic health.”

Grimes put off my questions about health care, saying she was on “state time.”

At a "Grannies for Grimes" event the following day, Grimes provided her most complete defense of Obamacare to a Louisville television station, arguing that it would spur job growth and provide relief to the 640,000 Kentucky residents without access to health insurance.

"As I've said before, I'm troubled with certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act," Grimes said. "But we're here at the state fair and if there's three reasons why Kentuckians -- especially our seniors -- need access to affordable health care coverage, you just have to look over to the right where you see the donut burger, the chili cheesesteak and the covered french fries that are here."

Still, Grimes left without stopping by the health exchange booth.

Grimes’ own anxiousness seems reflected across Kentucky and across party lines. Health care is always a fraught subject, where trust is rare, and where even the luckiest contend with aloof doctors and indifferent, complicated insurance. One Obama supporter, Sallie Dailey, explained to me that although she believes in Obamacare, she is frightened that so much still depends on private insurance -- the same companies that charge her daughter who has diabetes $677 per month.

Dailey admits that McConnell and company's hammering is having an effect on her daughter. “She reads all the crap," Dailey says. "She begins to doubt. Can it ever be better?”

The new Obamacare rates in Kentucky have yet to be made public. The specifics of the plans are still a mystery. Who knows how many young adults will sign up or how the Medicaid expansion might impact access to doctors. “It’s almost like painting a blank canvas,” says Democratic state Rep. Jimmie Lee, a statehouse guru on Medicaid.

Although McConnell, facing a primary challenger, has made his opposition plain and the tea party has vigorously opposed the law in court filings in the state, there has been little conservative uprising. John Kemper III, a co-founder of the United Kentucky Tea Party and a 2011 Republican nominee for state auditor, says he wants to wait and see what happens when the law is implemented.

“Most people don’t really understand it yet,” said Gov. Steve Beshear (D) in an interview with The Huffington Post. “I do not find that most people have any kind of negative feeling about it. It’s just that most people don’t quite understand the act or what they’re supposed to do yet.”

The good news for the state –- if the state is open to accepting it –- is that federal officials are impressed with Kynect. “I know that the administration believes that Kentucky and Vermont are the two best exchanges that were created, that are models for the country,” Yarmuth, the Democratic congressman, says. “They’ve said that numerous times to the Democratic caucus.”

This may be the first and last time Kentucky is in the same sentence as Vermont. Obamacare, without Diaz-Dempsey and her tote bags, is still a tough sell.

Erin Hoben, an outreach worker with Kentucky Voices for Health, a coalition pressing for affordable and effective health care, has crisscrossed the state breaking down Obamacare to residents and health care workers. “There’s a lot of mistrust,” she says.

Erin Hoben

Hoben, a Louisville native, studied law and worked in New York City before moving back home. “I don’t tell people I lived in New York for a while," she says. "That would not be acceptable. Me coming in -- they don’t know me. It's hard to gain trust. And I’ve been telling them the opposite of what they’ve heard for the last year. It’s really hard.”

A woman Hoben had been working with in Hazard called her recently to tell her that the tea party had urged her not to enroll because the exchange wasn’t happening. She went door to door with a free lunch program in Laurel County. She met a mother in a trailer, she recalls, who believed she was going to jail if she didn't sign up for insurance. What startled Hoben was that the mother seemed to just erroneously accept the potential jail time as a fact of life. "I quickly explained to her that was not going to happen," Hoben says.

On Monday afternoon, I leave the fair and head east to Appalachia to meet Hoben at the public library in Laurel County. People without insurance make up 20 percent of the county's population. Half of those residents earn so little that they would qualify for Medicaid under the expansion when it starts in January. Only 11 residents -- including a handful from the county health department -- show up for Hoben’s 6 p.m. presentation.

Hoben tries her cheery best to explain the benefits of Obamacare with its expansion of zero-cost prevention services and protections for those with pre-existing conditions. At the end of her half-hour lecture, she posts a section called “Debunking Myths,” where she has to explain that the feds would not force anyone to drop their insurance and that the law has withstood legal challenges.

The county’s health department workers worry about doctor shortages that could be caused by the Medicaid expansion. “We actually had a lady in the clinic this afternoon," one worker explains. “She said the pediatrician in this area couldn’t see her child until November. That concerns me that there’s not enough providers in this area.”

“It’s a legitimate concern,” Hoben replies.

A resident chimes in about the qualifications of the Kynect workers who will be assisting residents navigate the system, and declares that the doctor shortage will get worse. “There are doctors in this area that are going to be dropping out because they don’t want anything to do with this,” she says.

Lana Carnes, a specialist with a local insurance company, jumps in convinced that employers are going to drop coverage on their workers. Employee benefits will get worse.

Hoben counters that the exchange's plans will be robust and competitive.

“I think to assume things ...” Hoben says. Carnes cuts her off. “But that’s all that this is, is a bunch, a lot of assumption. I mean we’re assuming that this is going to work.”

After the meeting, the naysayers -- admitted fans of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) -- argue that the real problem is all their neighbors running to the emergency room for any little ailment. A few miles down the road, I find Saint Joseph Hospital in London just off the interstate. In the emergency room, I find only deeper mistrust in the system.

Deborah Brown, 56, had brought her husband in. He recently had a stroke and now there were blood pressure worries and complications. Although they had an appointment with their physician for the next day, he had told them to go to the ER. Brown says she had to borrow her sister-in-law’s GMC Envoy to make the 26-mile drive.

Brown is convinced Obamacare will just help the rich. “He’s going against his word,” she explains. "He made all those promises about how he was going to help the poor, the elderly."

Danielle Smith, 26, sits in the back of the waiting room with her blond 19-month-old son. Something, she is convinced, has burrowed inside a crevice in her son's ear. Maybe it's a tick. She drove 20 miles to Saint Joseph, skipping another hospital near her home. She says she doesn't trust that place.

A half-hour later, Smith marches out of an exam room clutching her boy and looking even more determined. “They said it was a freckle,” she explains, rushing to her car in the darkened, quiet lot. “So we’re going to get a second opinion.” The night was still young. It was 9 p.m.

Pretty soon, Christopher McClure hobbles through the doors, his inner thigh hurting from what he suspects are a pair of spider bites. He is not employed and does not have health insurance. His wife Michelle, 29, works as an assistant manager at a pizza chain making $12,000 a year. She also has no insurance and would qualify for the Medicaid expansion. But she's against Obamacare, convinced that it will wipe out her meager earnings. “Next enrollment season," she says, "they’re going to sock it to me.”

LAST PITCH

On Tuesday afternoon, Diaz-Dempsey works an extra 10 minutes past her shift at the fair. She had started to gather her things, but then saw the crowds continue to gather at her table and jumped back in, making her three-sentence pitch. "Reina, you're still here," admonishes a co-worker.

Finally, during a quiet moment, Diaz-Dempsey leaves her booth and heads into the fair’s parking lot. A large crowd has gathered at the mini-race track for the Doberman races. Acrobats stretch and twirl in the adjacent space. Seniors cradle funnel cake in their arthritic hands.

The night before, Diaz-Dempsey's husband, Greg, started asking questions about the new law and Kynect, she tells me. He wanted to know how it could work for him and his small, tree landscaping business. He was tired of the high turnover rate of his employees. He knew not being able to provide them benefits had been a factor. He understood why they quit.

Diaz-Dempsey gave her husband a detailed account of how it might work, how he could get tax credits.

“I think he’ll do the right thing,” Diaz-Dempsey says.

But she’s not 100 percent sure. Times are tough. “I don’t know if he’ll be able to or not,” she says.

Support HuffPost

At HuffPost, we believe that everyone needs high-quality journalism, but we understand that not everyone can afford to pay for expensive news subscriptions. That is why we are committed to providing deeply reported, carefully fact-checked news that is freely accessible to everyone.

Whether you come to HuffPost for updates on the 2024 presidential race, hard-hitting investigations into critical issues facing our country today, or trending stories that make you laugh, we appreciate you. The truth is, news costs money to produce, and we are proud that we have never put our stories behind an expensive paywall.

Would you join us to help keep our stories free for all? Your will go a long way.

Support HuffPost

Before You Go

Lies And Distortions Of The Health Care Debate
Healthcare In America Is Already 'The Best In The World'(01 of12)
Open Image Modal
One of the more positive sounding admonitions from health care reform opponents was that the United States had "the best health care in the world," so why would you mess with it? Well, it's true that if you want the experience the pinnacle of medical care, you come to the United States. And if you want the pinnacle of haute cuisine, you go to Per Se. If you want the pinnacle of commercial air travel, you get a first class seat on British Airways. Now, naturally, you wouldn't let just anyone mess with someone's tasting menu or state-of-the-art air-beds. But like anything that's "the best," the best health care in the world isn't for everybody. The costs are prohibitively high, the access is prohibitively exclusive, and the resources are prohibitively scarce.What do the people in America who "fly coach" in the health care system get? Well, at the time of the health care reform debate, they were participating in a system that was, by all objective measurements, overpriced and underperforming -- if you were lucky enough to be participating in it. As anyone who's fortunate enough to have employer based health care or unfortunate enough to have a pre-existing condition can tell you, health care for ordinary people already involved all of those things that we were told would be a feature of the Affordable Care Act -- long waits, limited choice, and rationing.When the Commonwealth Fund rated health care systems by nation, the top marks in the surveyed categories went to the United Kingdom, New Zealand and the Netherlands. Ezra Klein examined the study, and observed:"The issue isn't just that we don't have universal health care. Our delivery system underperforms, too. 'Even when access and equity measures are not considered, the U.S. ranks behind most of the other countries on most measures. With the inclusion of primary care physician survey data in the analysis, it is apparent that the U.S. is lagging in adoption of national policies that promote primary care, quality improvement, and information technology.'" (credit:Getty)
Death Panels(02 of12)
Open Image Modal
The only thing that perhaps matched the vastness of the spread or the depth of the traction of the "death panel" lie was the predictability that such a lie would come to be told in the first place. After all, this was a Democratic president trying to sell a new health care reform plan with the intention of opening access and reducing cost to millions of Americans who had gone without for so long. What's the best way to counter it? Tell everyone that millions of Americans would have increased access ... to Death! The best account of how the "death panel" myth was born into this world and spread like garbage across the landscape has been penned by Brendan Nyhan, who in 2010 wrote "Why the "Death Panel" Myth Wouldn't Die: Misinformation in the Health Care Reform Debate." You should go read the whole thing.But to summarize, the lie began where many lies about health care reform begin -- with serial liar Betsy McCaughey, who in 1994 polluted the pages of the New Republic with a staggering pile of deception in an effort to scuttle President Bill Clinton's health care reform. As Nyhan documents, she re-emerged in 2009 when "she invented the false claim that the health care legislation in Congress would result in seniors being directed to 'end their life sooner.'"Nyhan: "McCaughey's statement was a reference to a provision in the Democratic health care bill that would have provided funding for an advanced care planning for Medicare recipients once every five years or more frequently if they become seriously ill. As independent fact-checkers showed (PolitiFact.com 2009b; FactCheck.org 2009a), her statement that these consultations would be mandatory was simply false--they would be entirely voluntary. Similarly, there is no evidence that Medicare patients would be pressured during these consultations to "do what's in society's best interest...and cut your life short."But the match that lit the death panel flame was not McCaughey, it was Sarah Palin, who repeated McCaughey's claims in a Facebook posting and invented the term "death panel." As Nyhan reports, Palin's claims were met with condemnation from independent observers and factcheckers, but the virality of the term "death panel" far outstripped its own debunking. To this day, the shorthand for this outrageous falsehood remains more firmly planted in the discourse than the truth.One thing worth pointing out is that Palin, in creating the term "death panel," intended to deceive people with it. In an interview with the National Review, Palin admitted: "The term I used to describe the panel making these decisions should not be taken literally." Rather, it was "a lot like when President Reagan used to refer to the Soviet Union as the 'evil empire.' He got his point across." Of course, while Reagan was exaggerating for effect, he wasn't trying to prey on the goodwill of those who were listening to him. (credit:Getty)
The Affordable Care Act Is A "Jobs-Killer"(03 of12)
Open Image Modal
Naturally, the GOP greeted anything that the Obama White House did -- from regulating pollution to flossing after meals -- as something that would "kill jobs." The Affordable Care Act was no different. As you might recall, Republicans' first attempt at repeal came in the form of an inartfully named law called the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." But did the health reform plan threaten jobs? Not by any honest measure. Per McClatchy Newspapers:
"The claim has no justification," said Micah Weinberg, a senior research fellow at the centrist New America Foundation's Health Policy Program.Since the law contains dual mandates that most individuals must obtain health insurance coverage and most employers must offer it by 2014, "the effect on employment is probably zero or close to it," said Amitabh Chandra, a professor of public policy at Harvard University.
As McClatchy reported, the "job-killing" claim creatively used the "lie of omission" -- relying on "out of date" data or omitting "offsetting information that would weaken the argument." The Congressional Budget Office, playing it straight, deemed it essentially too premature to measure what the effect the bill would have on the labor market. At the time, Speaker John Boehner dismissed the CBO, saying, "CBO is entitled to their opinion."Perhaps, but lately, job growth in the health care industry has bucked the economic downturn and health care has remained a robust sector of employment. And it stands to reason that enrolling another 30 million Americans into health insurance will increase the demand for health care services and products, which in turn should trigger the creation of more jobs. Is there a downside? Sure. More demand, and greater labor costs, could push health care prices upward even as other effects of health reform push them down. But it's more likely that repealing the bill will have a negative impact on jobs than retaining it.
(credit:AP)
The Affordable Care Act Would Add To The Deficit(04 of12)
Open Image Modal
The only thing more important than painting the Affordable Care Act as a certain killer of jobs was to paint it as a certain murderer of America's fiscal future. Surely this big government program was going to push indebtedness to such a height that our servitude to our future Chinese overlords was a fait accompli. As Ryan Grim reported in May of 2010, the CBO disagreed:
Comprehensive health care reform will cost the federal government $940 billion over a ten-year period, but will increase revenue and cut other costs by a greater amount, leading to a reduction of $138 billion in the federal deficit over the same period, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, a Democratic source tells HuffPost. It will cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the second ten year period.The source said it also extends Medicare's solvency by at least nine years and reduces the rate of its growth by 1.4 percent, while closing the doughnut hole for seniors, meaning there will no longer be a gap in coverage of medication.
Recently, the CBO updated its ten-year estimate by dropping off the first two years of the law (where there was little to no implementation) and adding two years at the back end (during which time there would be full implementation). As you might imagine, replacing two years of low numbers with two years of higher numbers increased the ten-year estimate. But opponents of the bill immediately freaked out and declared the costs to have skyrocketed. As Jonathan Chait reported:
The outcry was so widespread that the CBO took the unusual step of releasing a second update to explain to outraged conservatives that they were completely misreading the whole thing:"Some of the commentary on those reports has suggested that CBO and JCT have changed their estimates of the effects of the ACA to a significant degree. That's not our perspective. ...Although the latest projections extend the original ones by three years (corresponding to the shift in the regular ten-year projection period since the ACA was first being developed), the projections for each given year have changed little, on net, since March 2010."That is CBO-speak for: "Go home. You people are all crazy."
As Chait goes on to note, the CBO now projects that "the law would reduce the deficit by slightly more than it had originally forecast."
(credit:AP)
The Affordable Care Act $500 Billion Cut From Medicare(05 of12)
Open Image Modal
Normally, if you tell Republicans that you're going to cut $500 billion from Medicare, they will respond by saying, "Hooray, but could we make it $700 billion?" But the moment they got it into their heads that the Affordable Care Act would make that cut from Medicare, suddenly everyone from the party of ending Medicare As We Know It, Forever got all hot with concern about what would happen to these longstanding recipients of government health care. In fairness, as Factcheck pointed out, the GOP opponents of Obama's plan were simply picking up a cudgel that had recently been wielded by the president himself:
Whether these are "cuts" or much-needed "savings" depends on the political expedience of the moment, it seems. When Republican Sen. John McCain, then a presidential candidate, proposed similar reductions to pay for his health care plan, it was the Obama camp that attacked the Republican for cutting benefits.
Nevertheless!
Whatever you want to call them, it's a $500 billion reduction in the growth of future spending over 10 years, not a slashing of the current Medicare budget or benefits. It's true that those who get their coverage through Medicare Advantage's private plans (about 22 percent of Medicare enrollees) would see fewer add-on benefits; the bill aims to reduce the heftier payments made by the government to Medicare Advantage plans, compared with regular fee-for-service Medicare.
The New England Journal of Medicineconcurred:
A phased elimination of the substantial overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans, which now enroll nearly 25% of Medicare beneficiaries, will produce an estimated $132 billion in savings over 10 years.[...]The ACA also produces nearly $200 billion in savings by assuming that providers can improve their productivity as firms in other industries have done. On the basis of this presumed improvement, the law reduces Medicare's annual "market basket" updates for most types of providers - a provision that has generated controversy.
The law doesn't cut any customer benefits, just the amount that providers get paid. Hospitals and drug companies agreed to these cuts based on the calculation that more people with insurance meant more people consuming what they sell and, more importantly for the hospitals, fewer people getting treated and simply not paying for it.
(credit:AP)
The Affordable Care Act Provides Free Health Care For Undocumented Immigrants(06 of12)
Open Image Modal
This lie was launched to prominence with the help of a false accuser, South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson, who famously heckled President Barack Obama during an address to a Joint Session of Congress by yelling "You lie!" after the president had mentioned that undocumented immigrants would not be eligible for the credits for the bill's proposed health care exchanges.As Time's Michael Scherer pointed out, this was not much of a challenge for factcheckers:
In the Senate Finance Committee's working framework for a health plan, which Obama's speech seemed most to mimic, there is the line, "No illegal immigrants will benefit from the health care tax credits." Similarly, the major health-care-reform bill to pass out of committee in the House, H.R. 3200, contains Section 246, which is called "NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS."
In fact, as Ezra Klein pointed out, the Affordable Care Act "goes out of its way to exclude" undocumented immigrants:
As the AP points out...there are about 7 million unauthorized immigrants who will be prohibited from buying insurance on the newly created exchanges, even if they pay out of their own pocket. And the exclusion of this group from health reform -- along with other restrictions that affect fully legal immigrants as well -- could create a massive coverage gap that puts a strain on the rest of the health system as well.
Klein goes on to add that "immigrants-rights advocates tried to prevent this scenario from happening," but they ended up losing to the politics of the day. The concession they won was a promise from the president that he would shepherd a comprehensive immigration reform package through the legislature. They lost that round, too.
(credit:AP)
Republicans, And Their Ideas, Were Left Out Of The Bill And The Process(07 of12)
Open Image Modal
Were health care policies dear to Republicans left out of the health care reform bill? Totally! Unless we're counting the following:--Deficit-neutral bill--Longterm cost reduction--Interstate competition that allows consumers to purchase insurance across state lines--Medical malpractice reform--High-risk pools--An extension of the time young people were allowed to remain on their parents' policies--No public money for abortion--Small business exemptions/tax credits--Job wellness programs--Delivery system reformIn fact, the Democrats were eager to get GOP input and enthusiastic about including many of their desired components in the bill. Oh, and did we mention that the Affordable Care Act was modeled on a reform designed and implemented by a former Republican governor and presidential candidate, whose innovation was widely celebrated by the GOP while said former governor was running for president? And did we mention that the individual mandate that was used in Romneycare to ensure "no free riders" was originally dreamed up by the Heritage Foundation? And did we add that additional DNA of the Affordable Care Act was borrowed from the Senate GOP alternative to the Clinton plan in the 1990s and the 2009 Bipartisan Policy Committee plan, which was endorsed by Tom Daschle, Howard Baker, and Bob Dole?As for the process, you might recall that the White House very patiently waited for the bipartisan Gang Of Six to weigh in with its own solution, and openly courted one Republican gang member, Sen. Chuck Grassley, long after it was clear to every reporter inside the Beltway that Grassley was intentionally acting in bad faith.And perhaps you don't recall the bipartisan health care summit that was held in March of 2009? if so, don't feel bad about it -- RNC Chairman Michael Steele couldn't remember it either, when he yelled at the president for not having one. (credit:AP)
The Demonization Of 'Deem And Pass'(08 of12)
Open Image Modal
So, here's a fun little story about obscure parliamentary procedures. In May of 2010, as the health care reform michegas was steaming toward its endgame, it looked like the measure might fall. The Senate had passed a bill, but the House was stuck in a bit of a jam. It had no other choice but to take a vote on the Senate's bill, because if the House bill ended up in a conference committee to be reconciled with the Senate's, the whole resulting she-bang was assured of a filibuster, as the Democrats had, in the intervening period, lost their Senate supermajority. But the House had a problem. As I wrote at the time:
House members are averse to doing anything that looks like they approve of the various side-deals that were made in the Senate -- like the so-called "Cornhusker Kickback." The House intends to remove those unpopular features in budget reconciliation, but if they pursue budget reconciliation on a standard legislative timeline -- where they pass the Senate bill outright first and then go back to pass a reconciliation package of fixes -- they'd still appear to be endorsing the sketchy side deals, and then the GOP would jump up and down on their heads.Enter "deem and pass." Under this process, the House will simply skip to approving the reconciliation fixes, and "deem" the Senate bill to be passed. By doing it this way, the Democrats get the Senate bill passed while simultaneously coming out against the unpopular features of the same.
"Deem and pass" is the aforementioned obscure parliamentary procedure. And here's the thing about obscure parliamentary procedures -- everyone loves them when their side is doing them, but when they're being done to you, then they are basically evil schemes from the blasted plains of Hell.So if you're guessing that the Republicans declared the Democrats' use of "deem and pass" -- which also carried the moniker "the Slaughter Rule," after Rep. Louise Slaughter, who proposed its use in this instance -- to be a monstrous and unprecedented abuse of power, then give yourself a prize! And give yourself a bonus if you guessed that in reality, the GOP had used "deem and pass" lots of times. As Ryan Grim reported, "deeming resolutions" had been in use dating back to 1933, and in 2005 and 2006, Republicans employed them 36 times.Other Republicans complained that Slaughter was supporting a tactic that she once vigorously opposed. That's true! She fought the "deem and pass" during the Bush administration and lost. Which is precisely when she learned how effective it could be!
(credit:Getty)
The Affordable Care Act Would Create A Mad Army of IRS Agents(09 of12)
Open Image Modal
Lots of people wouldn't mind having better access to more affordable health care. But what if it came with thousands of IRS agents, picking through your stool sample? That sounds pretty bad. It also sounds pretty implausible! But that was no impediment to multiple health care reform opponents making claims that the tax man was COMMINAGETCHA!In this case, the individual mandate -- which requires people to purchase insurance or incur a tax penalty -- provided the fertile soil for this deception to spread. A March 2010 floor speech from a panicked Sen. John Ensign was typical of the genre:
My amendment goes to the heart of one of the problems with this bill. There is an individual mandate that puts fines on people that can also attach civil penalties. And 16,500 new IRS agents are going to be required to be hired because of the health care reform bill.
March of 2010 was a pretty great time for this particular lie. In one five day period, Ensign was joined by Reps. Paul Ryan ("There is an individual mandate. It mandates individuals purchase government-approved health insurance or face a fine to be collected by the IRS which will need $10 billion additional and 16,500 new IRS agents to police and enforce this mandate."), Pete Sessions ("16,000 new IRS agents will be hired simply to make sure that this health care bill is enforced.") and Cliff Stearns ("There is $10 billion to hire about 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce the individual mandate on every American").All wrong! Per Factcheck:
This wildly inaccurate claim started as an inflated, partisan assertion that 16,500 new IRS employees might be required to administer the new law. That devolved quickly into a claim, made by some Republican lawmakers, that 16,500 IRS "agents" would be required. Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas even claimed in a televised interview that all 16,500 would be carrying guns. None of those claims is true.The IRS' main job under the new law isn't to enforce penalties. Its first task is to inform many small-business owners of a new tax credit that the new law grants them -- starting this year -- which will pay up to 35 percent of the employer's contribution toward their workers' health insurance. And in 2014 the IRS will also be administering additional subsidies -- in the form of refundable tax credits -- to help millions of low- and middle-income individuals buy health insurance.The law does make individuals subject to a tax, starting in 2014, if they fail to obtain health insurance coverage. But IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman testified before a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee March 25 that the IRS won't be auditing individuals to certify that they have obtained health insurance.
As Factcheck goes on to note, on page 131 of the bill that was passed, the IRS is explicitly prohibited from "from using the liens and levies commonly used to collect money owed by delinquent taxpayers, and rules out any criminal penalties for individuals who refuse to pay the tax or those who don't obtain coverage."
(credit:AP)
Affordable Care Act Bill Is Way Too Long And Impossible To Read!(10 of12)
Open Image Modal
Oh, Congresscritters, the poor dears! So many bills to read and so little time -- between raising campaign cash at lush fundraisers and receiving marching orders from powerful corporate interests -- to actually read them all. And this Affordable Care Act was a real humdinger of a long bill. And long bills are bad because length implies complication and complication requires study and study implies some form of "work." So the proper thing to do is to mulch the entire print run of the bill and use it to power the boiler that heats the "sex dungeon" in the Longworth Office Building, the end!Actually, reading the bill is not that hard, despite the complaints. As the folks at Computational Legal Studies were able to divine:
Those versed in the typesetting practices of the United States Congress know that the printed version of a bill contains a significant amount of whitespace including non-trivial space between lines, large headers and margins, an embedded table of contents, and large font. For example, consider page 12 of the printed version of H.R. 3962. This page contains fewer than 150 substantive words.We believe a simple page count vastly overstates the actual length of bill. Rather than use page counts, we counted the number of words contained in the bill and compared these counts to the number of words in the existing United States Code. In addition, we consider the number of text blocks in the bill -- where a text block is a unit of text under a section, subsection, clause, or sub-clause.
As HuffPost noted in March of 2010, "the total number of words in the House Health Reform Bill are 363,086," and when you throw out the words in the titles and tables of contents and whatnot, leaving only words that "impact substantive law," the word count drops to 234,812."Harry Potter And the Order Of The Phoenix," a popular book read by small children, is 257,000 words long. (Although in fairness to Congress, the Affordable Care Act contains very few exciting accounts of Quidditch matches.)
(credit:AP)
The 2012ers Join The Fun(11 of12)
Open Image Modal
We couldn't have a list of Affordable Care Act distortions without noting the ways some of your 2012ers have added to the canon. Herman Cain said that if the ACA had been implemented, he'd be dead. Not likely! The new law expands coverage so that uninsured individuals who face what Cain faced (cancer) have a better chance of getting coverage, and it restricts insurers from tossing cancer patients off the rolls based on their "pre-existing condition." But more to the point, Cain would have always been the wealthy guy who could afford to choose his doctor and pick the care he wanted. The Affordable Care Act doesn't prohibit wealthy people from spending money.Rick Santorum says that his daughter, who is diagnosed with a genetic disorder called trisomy 18 and who required special needs care, would be "denied care" under the Affordable Care Act. Nope! Again, the law restricts insurers from throwing people with pre-existing conditions off their rolls. And for individuals under 19, that went into effect in September of 2010.Michele Bachmann believes that the Affordable Care Act would open "sex clinics" in public schools. This is Michele Bachmann we're talking about. Do you even need to ask?And finally, Mitt Romney has said, as recently as March 5, that he never intended his CommonwealthCare reform to serve as a "model for the nation." "Very early on," he insisted, "we were asked -- is what you've done in Massachusetts something you would have the entire government do, the federal government do? I said no, from the very beginning." Unless "very early on" and "from the very beginning" mean something different from the conventional definition of those phrases, Romney should augment his daily pharmaceutical intake with some memory-enhancing gingko biloba. (credit:AP)
So Many More To Choose From!(12 of12)
Open Image Modal
Obviously, we did what we could to include as many of these lies and distortions as possible, but there's no way to include them all. If you're a completist, however, be sure to check out the Impossible Tale Of The One-Dollar Abortion, the Story of the State-Based Inflexibility That Wasn't, The Curious Case of the Politically Connected Waivers and Nancy Drew And The Hidden $105 Billion Expenditure. (credit:AP)