Kyl: Health Insurers "Don't Need To Be 'Kept Honest.'" "The health insurance industry is one of the most regulated industries in America," said Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) on the Senate floor Monday. "They don't need to be 'kept honest' by the government." [Wall Street Journal, 7/29/09]

Kyl Rejected Health Insurance Market Reforms That Have Even Been Endorsed By The Insurance Industry, Like Requiring Insurers To Provide Cover Without Regard To Pre-Existing Conditions. "Asked by ABC News about a package of insurance market reforms that have been endorsed not only by President Obama but also by the insurance industry, Sen. Jon Kyl came out against all three proposals. In particular, the Arizona Republican signaled that he opposes requiring insurance companies nationwide to provide coverage without regard to pre-existing conditions; requiring them to charge everyone the same rate regardless of health status; and requiring all Americans to carry health insurance. ... Kyl said he opposed guaranteed issue -- requiring insurers to provide coverage without regard to pre-existing conditions -- and community rating -- requiring them to charge the same rate regardless of health status -- because of concerns about cost." [ABC News, 8/19/09]

Kyl Said That The President's Health Care Proposal Would "Put The Government In Control Of Health Care" And Cut $500 Billion From Medicare Which Would Result In Rationing For America's Seniors. Sen. Kyl: "There are two basic approaches here. We know there are some problems in health care. We know there's problem for cost, and access. Target those specific problems with specific solutions is the way that I would go at it. On the other hand, the way that the president or the Democrats have gone at it is to effectively say let's take the system that we today and totally turn it upside down, put the government in control of health care and in charge of insurance and for those people who already have insurance, and like what they have, jeopardize that current situation and also jeopardize Medicare by taking 500 billion of savings 'out of Medicare' in order to cover more people outside of Medicare. That would result in rationing for America's seniors." [Fox News, 8/20/09]

Kyl Said The President's Health Care Proposal Was A "Step Towards Government-Run Health Care In The Country." “It doesn’t matter what you call it,” Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) told reporters on a Tuesday conference call. “They want it to accomplish something that Republicans are opposed to. That is the step towards government-run health care in the country. The president himself said you can imagine a cooperative meeting that definition of a public option.” [Washington Independent, 8/19/09]

AMA President-Elect Reassured: Physicians And Patients Don’t Need To Fear The Rise Of A Monolithic Health System With No Choice From President Obama. The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal reported that “American Medical Association president-elect Dr. James Rohack told Mississippi doctors Friday…Physicians and patients don't need to fear the rise of a monolithic health system with no choice, because it's not something the American people would accept, Rohack said. The president didn't advocate a single-payer system for the United States at the meeting, Rohack said. Obama said he believes in access to health care for all with a system that is a mix of public and private sources with patients still able to see the physicians of their choice.” [Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, 5/30/09]

FactCheck.org: Under Obama’s Health Care Plan, “Nobody Would Be Forced To Drop His Or Her Current Insurance.” “Obama has long said he would allow individuals or small businesses to buy insurance through a public plan – like the one now available to members of Congress. But nobody would be forced to drop his or her current insurance, and private plans would exist as they do now. This was the health care plan he promoted as a presidential candidate.” [FactCheck.org, 5/1/09]

Kyl Said That The President's Health Care Proposal Would "Put The Government In Control Of Health Care" And Cut $500 Billion From Medicare Which Would Result In Rationing For America's Seniors. Sen. Kyl: "There are two basic approaches here. We know there are some problems in health care. We know there's problem for cost, and access. Target those specific problems with specific solutions is the way that I would go at it. On the other hand, the way that the president or the Democrats have gone at it is to effectively say let's take the system that we today and totally turn it upside down, put the government in control of health care and in charge of insurance and for those people who already have insurance, and like what they have, jeopardize that current situation and also jeopardize Medicare by taking 500 billion of savings 'out of Medicare' in order to cover more people outside of Medicare. That would result in rationing for America's seniors." [Fox News, 8/20/09]

Politifact: The Claim That Health Care Reform Will Lead To Callous Decisions That Would Allow People To Die If They Face A Costly Treatment Is "False." "In the ad, a man weeps over someone lying in a hospital bed while the announcer says, '$22,750. In England, government health officials decided that's how much six months of life is worth. Under their socialized system if a medical treatment costs more, you're out of luck. That's wrong for America.' That footage is interspersed with shots of the Capitol building and the whole thing is set to some very ominous music. You can watch it here. The carefully worded ad doesn't directly say that the government is planning to put a price on our lives, but the implication is clear: The reform plan will lead to callous decisions that would allow people to die if they face a costly treatment. So that's what we're going to check — whether the reform plan would impose those kind of caps on treatment. ... So, back to the Club for Growth ad. Although our experts agree that it gets the NICE statistic correct about the British practice, the ad's main point about cost limits is incorrect. There is no such practice in the comparative effectiveness program, nor is it part of the current health reform proposals pending in Congress. The House and Senate bills under consideration would not require the government to decide how much a person's life is worth. As a result, we give the Club for Growth a False." [Politifact]

Bush Medicare Head Debunked Notion That Reform Leads To Ration: “Just Because There Isn’t Some Government Agency Specifically Telling You Which Treatments You Can Have…That Doesn’t Mean You Aren’t Getting Some Treatments.” The New York Times’ David Leonhardt wrote a piece debunking the argument against health care reform under the specter of “rationing,” and quoted Dr. Mark McClellan, “head of Medicare in the Bush administration,” who said, “[j]ust because there isn’t some government agency specifically telling you which treatments you can have based on cost-effectiveness…that doesn’t mean you aren’t getting some treatments.” [New York Times, 6/17/09]

AARP Said The Proposed Medicare Changes Would Have “Little Impact” On Medicare Beneficiaries. “AARP, the seniors' advocacy group, argues that the proposed changes would have little impact on Medicare beneficiaries because they represent such a small portion of total Medicare spending, and says insurance providers have agreed to accept the reductions as part of reforms that would deliver millions of new customers. The cuts ‘are about a 3 percent reduction overall in what Medicare is expected to spend over the 10-year budget window. So the question is: Can we find 3 to 5 percent in efficiencies in the Medicare program?’ said David Sloane, a senior vice president at AARP.” [Washington Post, 9/23/09]

NYT: Republican Leaders Have Scared Older Americans With “Cynicism And Hypocrisy” By Posturing As The Protectors Of Medicare, Despite Long History Of Trying To Cripple Medicare. “It has been frustrating to watch Republican leaders posture as the vigilant protectors of Medicare against health care reforms designed to make the system better and more equitable. This is the same party that in the past tried to pare back Medicare and has repeatedly denounced the kind of single-payer system that is at the heart of Medicare and its popularity. For all of the cynicism and hypocrisy, it seems to be working. The Republicans have scared many older Americans into believing that their medical treatment will suffer under pending reform bills.” [New York Times, Editorial, 9/27/09]

AARP Warned Seniors Against “Myths and Scare Tactics” In Health Reform Debate, Said “None Of The Health Care Reform Proposals Being Considered By Congress Would Cut Medicare Benefits.” AARP wrote in a myth-vs.-fact health reform website that, “There are special interest groups trying to block progress on health care reform by using myths and scare tactics. Like the notion that health care reform would ration your care, hurt Medicare or be a government takeover. Actually, these are false statements.” AARP concluded about the Medicare claim that, “[n]one of the health care reform proposals being considered by Congress would cut Medicare benefits or increase your out-of-pocket costs for Medicare services.” [AARP, Myths Vs. Facts]

Kyl Said That The President's Health Care Proposal Would Be "Hugely Costly" And "The Debt That This Country Will Have At The End Of This Health Care Proposal Would Be Not Sustainable." Sen. Kyl: "Well, than the proposals that are out there, absolutely. Those are inimical to patient's choice. It's hugely costly, the debt that this country will have at the end of this health care proposal would be not sustainable." [NPR, 8/4/09]

Obama: "I Will Not Sign A Plan That Adds One Dime To Our Deficits." President Obama: "First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I’m serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don’t materialize." [President Obama speech to the joint session of Congress, 9/9/09]

Sen. Snowe Convinced That Baucus Bill Reflects, “Our Position And Views That It Should Be Budget Neutral…[Will Bend The Cost Curve] In The First 10 Years.” In an interview with Sen. Olympia Snowe, John Harwood asked: “MR. HARWOOD: Are you satisfied that the cost control, cost containment in the bill is adequate? SEN. SNOWE: I do. And you know, we were adamant in our, you know, our positions and views that it should be budget neutral and, if anything, should bend the cost curve and bend the overall cost of, you know, the escalation, you know, of inflation within health care. And it does begin that trend in the first 10 years.” [CNBC, 9/17/09]

Kyl Said That Comparative Effectiveness Research Was "A Tool To Ration Or Deny Care." Sen. Kyl: "The stalking horse for this dangerous shift in policy is what is known as 'comparative effectiveness research.' If structured appropriately, this research can provide patients and doctors with useful information about the latest in effective treatments so that they may make informed health-care decisions. For example, a study might compare a drug versus a surgery and determine that the drug is just as effective or better at improving patients’ quality of life. But, without the appropriate safeguards, the government may misuse comparative effectiveness research as a tool to ration or deny care. And since private insurers tend to follow the federal government’s lead, this has significant implications for all patients." [Sen. Kyl release, 4/20/09]

FactCheck.org: The Claim That Funding Comparative Studies Is A "Critical Step Toward Rationing" Is Wrong; Comparative Effectiveness Research Is Forbidden From Issuing Restrictions Or Even Guidelines On Care. "To be sure, the cost factor prompts critics to say the research will lead to the government, or perhaps insurance companies, denying certain medical procedures based on cost alone. Proponents say such research provides valuable information to the public and physicians on which procedures work best and whether more costly treatments are actually more effective. Patients United Now, a 501(c)3 project of Americans for Prosperity Foundation, says in its back-up that funding comparative studies is 'a critical step toward rationing,' but ARRA specifically forbids the council coordinating such research from issuing any restrictions or even guidelines on care." [FactCheck.org, 8/10/09]