Emac's Stock Watch | Fox Business
« The Fiscal Fed
What Ruth Madoff Didn't Say »

  • June 23, 2009 08:24 AM EDT by Elizabeth MacDonald

    Health-Care Myths

    The Obama administration is now attempting the biggest overhaul of healthcare since Lyndon B. Johnson pushed through Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.

    But the health care reform debate is riddled with misleading myths taken as fact, myths that are torquing the debate beyond recognition, from the U.S.'s supposedly poor infant mortality rates, who really gets medical care, the level of uninsureds, who really pays for insurance, who actually can afford insurance and wait times for surgeries.  

    Most everyone agrees that the U.S. health system is broken and that the uninsured must get coverage.

    But fixing the health system should be based on the facts, not on a statistical faith-based initiative mounted to ram through reform, where the data is either more nuanced on closer look or the statements made are simply not true.

    Worth keeping in mind, as the U.S. is already on track to compile total 10-year deficits that would surpass the annual GDP of Great Britain, Russia and Germany for one year-combined, and as the government is getting increasingly entangled in key industries, with higher taxes coming on incomes, on capital and on energy. Soliciting Lobbyists

    Meanwhile, the deficit spending figures do not include Medicare and Social Security costs, reforms which are so far on the backburner, they are off the stove. The following includes research from Fox News analyst James Farrell.

    Myth: "The U.S. has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world."

    Talk about stretching a point until it snaps. This ranking is based on data mining.

    The U.S. ranks high on this list largely because this country numbers among those that actually measure neonatal deaths, notably in premature infant fatalities, unlike other countries that basically leave premature babies to die, notes health analyst Betsey McCaughey.

    Other statistical quirks push the U.S. unjustifiably higher in this ranking compared to other countries.

    The Center for Disease Control says the U.S. ranks 29th in the world for infant mortality rates, (according to the CDC), behind most other developed nations.

    The U.S. is supposedly worse than Singapore, Hong Kong, Greece, Northern Ireland, Cuba and Hungary. And the U.S. is supposedly on a par with Slovakia and Poland. CNN, the New York Times, numerous outlets across the country report the U.S. as abysmal in terms of infant mortality, without delving into what is behind this ranking.

    The Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit research group, routinely flunks the U.S. health system using the infant mortality rate.

    "Infant mortality and our comparison with the rest of the world continue to be an embarrassment to the United States," Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, a research organization, has said.

    Start with the definition. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a country's infant mortality rate as the number of infants who die between birth and age one, per 1,000 live births.

    WHO says a live birth is when a baby shows any signs of life, even if, say, a low birth weight baby takes one, single breath, or has one heartbeat. While the U.S. uses this definition, other countries don't and so don't count premature or severely ill babies as live births-or deaths.    

    The United States counts all births if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size or duration of life, notes Bernardine Healy, a former director of the National Institutes of Health and former president and chief executive of the American Red Cross (Healy noted this information in a column for U.S. News & World Report).

    And that includes stillbirths, which many other countries don't report.

    And what counts as a birth varies from country to country. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) before these countries count these infants as live births, Healy notes.

    In other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long, Healy notes. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless, and are not counted, Healy says. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth, Healy notes.

    Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in Norway's underweight infants that are not now counted, Healy says, quoting Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

    Moreover, the ranking doesn't take into account that the US has a diverse, heterogeneous population, Healy adds, unlike, say, in Iceland, which tracks all infant deaths regardless of factor, but has a population under 300,000 that is 94% homogenous.

    APTOPIX Obama WasteLikewise, Finland and Japan do not have the ethnic and cultural diversity of the U.S.'s 300 mn-plus citizens. 

    Plus, the U.S. has a high rate of teen pregnancies, teens who smoke, who take drugs, who are obese and uneducated, all factors which cause higher infant mortality rates.

    And the US has more mothers taking fertility treatments, which keeps the rate of pregnancy high due to multiple-birth pregnancies.

    Again, the U.S. counts all of these infants as births. Moreover, we're not losing healthy babies, as the scary stats imply. Most of the babies that die are either premature or born seriously ill, including those with congenital malformations.

    Even the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, cautions against using comparisons country-by-country.

    "Some of the international variation in infant and neonatal mortality rates may be due to variations among countries in registering practices of premature infants (whether they are reported as live births or not)," the OECD says.

    "In several countries, such as in the United States, Canada and the Nordic countries, very premature babies (with relatively low odds of survival) are registered as live births, which increases mortality rates compared with other countries that do not register them as live births." (Note: Emphasis EMac's).

    The U.S. ranks much better on a measure that the World Health Organization says is more accurate, the perinatal mortality rate, defined as death between 22 weeks' gestation and 7 days after birth. According to the WHO 2006 report on Neonatal and Perinatal Mortality, the U.S. comes in at 16th-and even higher if you knock out several tiny countries with tiny birthrates and populations, such as Martinique, Hong Kong, and San Marino.

    Myth: "About 46 mn Americans lack access to health insurance."

    There is a difference between health care and health insurance, as Fox Business anchor Brian Sullivan points out after researching reports on health care from the Congressional Budget Office, Blue Cross-Blue Shield and Georgetown University.

    Everyone has access to health care. They may not have health insurance, but the law mandates everyone who shows up at emergency rooms must be treated, insurance or not, he reports.

    About 14 mn of the uninsured were eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP 2003, a BlueCross-BlueShield Association study based on 2003 data estimated. These people would be signed up for government insurance if they ever made it to the emergency room, Sullivan says.

    A whopping 70% of uninsured children are eligible for Medicaid, SCHIP, or both programs, a 2008 study by the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute shows.

    Census figures also show that 18.3 mn of the uninsured were under 34 who may simply not think about the need for insurance, Sullivan reports.

    And of those 46 mn without insurance, an estimated 10 mn or so are non-U.S. citizens who may not be eligible, according to statistics from the Census Bureau), Sullivan reports.

    Myth: "The uninsured can't afford to buy coverage."

    Many may be able to afford health insurance, but for whatever reason choose to not buy it. In 2007, an estimated 17.6 mn of the uninsured made more than $50,000 per year, and 10 mn of those made more than $75,000 a year, says Sally Pipes, author of the book, The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide, a book that attempts to dig behind the numbers. According to author Pipes, 38% of the U.S. uninsured population earns more than $50,000 per year.

    That means 38% of the uninsured likely make enough to afford health insurance, but for undetermined reasons choose not to buy it.

    Myth: "Most of the uninsured do not have health insurance because they are not working and so don't have access to health benefits through an employer."

    Not so fast--the data is more nuanced and revealing upon closer look. baucus

    According to the CBO, about half of the uninsured in 2009 fall into one of the following three categories. Some people will be in more than one of those categories at the same time:

    *Nearly one out of three, 30%, will be offered, but will decline, coverage from an employer.

    *Nearly one out of five, 18%, will be eligible for, but not enrolled in Medicaid; and

    *More than one out of seven, 17%, will have family income above 300% of the poverty level (about $65,000 for a family of four);

    What is potentially the real number for the poor uninsured? According to a 2003 Blue Cross study, 8.2 mn Americans are actually without coverage for the long haul, because they are too poor to purchase health care, but earn too much to qualify for government assistance.

    [Source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 18, 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf]

    Myth: "The estimated 45 mn people without health insurance lacked health insurance for every day of the year."

    The CBO's 45 mn estimate reflects individuals "without health insurance at any given time during 2009."

    But that does not mean that all 45 mn people spend every day of 2009 without insurance. It is a point estimate - on any particular day, there will be 45 mn individuals without health insurance. 

    [Source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 18, 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf]

    Myth: "Government-run universal health care would increase the international competitiveness of U.S. companies."

    The Congressional Budget Office disagrees.

    "Replacing employment-based health care with a government-run system could reduce employers' payments for their workers' insurance, but the amount that they would have to pay in overall compensation would remain essentially unchanged," the CBO says. "Cash wages and other forms of compensation would have to rise by roughly the amount of the reduction in health benefits for firms to be able to attract the same number and types of workers."

    [Source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 18, 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf]

    Myth: "The cost of uncompensated care for the uninsured significantly increases hospital costs."

    Hospitals provided about $35 bn in uncompensated care in 2008, the CBO says. Uncompensated care represented only 5% of total hospital revenues. In addition, half of the $35 bn in uncompensated hospital costs were offset by Medicare and Medicaid.

    And the cost of uncompensated care for the uninsured is "unlikely to have a substantial effect on private payment rates," the CBO says, adding that shifting costs from uninsured to private insurance premiums is "likely to be relatively small."

    [source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf]

    Myth: "Nationalized health care would not impact patient waiting times."

    Waiting time for elective surgery is lower in the US than in countries with nationalized health care.

    In 2005, only 8% of U.S. patients reported waiting four months or more for elective surgery.

    Countries with nationalized health care had higher percentages with waiting times of four months or more, including Australia (19%); New Zealand (20%); Canada (33%); and the United Kingdom (41%). 

    [Source: Commonwealth Fund, "MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL: AN INTERNATIONAL UPDATE ON THE COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF AMERICAN HEALTH CARE," by Karen Davis, Cathy Schoen, Stephen C. Schoenbaum, Michelle M. Doty, Alyssa L. Holmgren, Jennifer L. Kriss, and Katherine K. Shea, May 2007, http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2007/May/Mirror%20%20Mirror%20on%20the%20Wall%20%20An%20International%20Update%20on%20the%20Comparative%20Performance%20of%20American%20Healt/1027_Davis_mirror_mirror_international_update_final%20pdf.pdf]

    Myth: "Insurers cover less today than they did in the past."

    No they're covering more costs. According to the CBO, consumers paid for 33 % of their total, personal health care expenditures in 1975. But by 2000, consumers' personal share had fallen to 17%, and it declined to 15% in 2006. 

    [Source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 18, 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf]

RSS Subscribe to Comments

paksa

Thank you so much for a well-researded article. There is so much rumor and political rehtoric deluging the American public for political reasons only on the health care situation is this country. This entire attempt to 'reform' health care is a determined effort to put a political 'feather' in the presidents cap.... Why isn't someone trying to 'fix' social security, a fund that many of us have put funds into for years and years and have seen it plundered by the government - and we had no choice in the matter...

June 23, 2009 at 1:41 pm

RL

If you have ever lived in a country that has national healthcare or have loved ones that live there you KNOW all the down sides of Nationalized Healthcare. Ever watch a loved one wait weeks- months for a NECESSARY surgery(not elected)? Ever see the equipment in these hospitals use compared to the US? Ever wait in the ER of these hopsitals or try to get an appointment? Not all it's cracked up to be! What if you have cancer? Ever think that THEY decide whether you're worth it to recieve treatment to maybe extend you life a little? My mother was recently in France and had a very serious accident she said it was scary the conditions that hospital was in and that she wouldn't take her dog there! X-ray equipment held together with duct tape! And that was in PARIS not some little village! We need to re-think this before blindly following the government's band wagon.

June 23, 2009 at 1:40 pm

James

Thank you, Elizabeth, for publishing some sourced, fatual truth about health care in America. I'll bet a year's wages you don't find this article in one single mainstream media publication. It tells the truth instead of what the liberals want to con Americans into believing.

June 23, 2009 at 1:39 pm

Brad

the reader citing 75% support neglets to provide further details found in poll like would these same people support if their own cost increases as result of gov plan- only 47%. Another 68% concerned about restricting access, etc. (see todays WSJ for details). Do you think it is a coincidence the bill proposed by senator Kennedy would exclude, yes-EXCLUDE, members of congress and public employees??!! I call it the "good enough for them but not for us" healthcare reform bill. And dismissing facts as "so called documentation" is pretty lame rebutable if trying to sell public on this scheme. But as usual, why deal in facts if it menas you can achieve your end result?

June 23, 2009 at 1:38 pm

S A

Ok, then taking all you said about infant mortality, if we counted the same as other countries where would we rank?

June 23, 2009 at 1:37 pm

SC Viewer

I can afford health insurance but I am healthy dont drink or smoke exercise daily and dont feel the need for insurance. If I ever get hurt in an accident the goverment will pay for it some how some way-just ask the people already on several types of goverment assistance-they KNOW how to work the system.

June 23, 2009 at 1:37 pm

Lance

@John Edward: If the WHO, CDC, and CBO are not credible sources of information, what are??? Only the eminations from The One's sphincters qualify as truth in your twisted little world, it would seem.

June 23, 2009 at 1:36 pm

Bluejester

I paid 6000$ a year for employer provided health care. But when my wife and kids got into an accident the insurur denied the 25K emergency room bill because I had not Pre-certified for an emergancy treatment. This is not a myth, this is the state of healthcare in America for someone with a family of 5 and a 50K income. Half a years salery on top of 6K in premiums just so I can go bankrupt. Does anyone think a Congress critter would ever be in the same situation? Tax payer funded Insurence works pretty good for them I'm told. Fox needs to stop the lies if they ever want any credibility among the educated masses. Bj

June 23, 2009 at 1:36 pm

Suzanne

Spend some time talking to people in countries with universal health care. I have a chronic conditions and nearly everyone I have spoken with in those countries, with the same condition, has had numerous surgeries and complications due to not being able to receive timely, ongong preventative care. There simply isn't enough money to provide proper health care in the countries of people I have spoken too. If I have an emergent situation with my health I get in to see my doctor the same day. I have known people in terrible crisis who can't be seen for weeks or months and whom the hospitals turn away. NO THANK YOU The only way I would ever get behind this plan is if citizens were allowed the CHOICE of remaining on their current "private" health insurance plans. I gladly pay my premium to receive excellent care.

June 23, 2009 at 1:36 pm

Barry

John Edwards, not everyone who watches Fox is Mega rich. I have a hard time paying for my own insurance much less all the illegal aliens and people who don't want to do what it takes to afford insurance. Where is my incentive to work exceptionally hard if the reward is to pay for my neighbors healthcare, his house, his food and his big screen color tv. We all make choices in life and I'm sure that anyone who's willing to put forth the effort will reap the benefits. If the problem is the cost of heathcare then I say we attrack the problem rather than adding 50 milliion more people to it. I should not be forced to be charitable. I prefer to give to the charities I select and not the ones that the government chooses for me. Besides, the government is not very good at running things. I tell you what though, if the plan is so great, how come the president and congress aren't making the switch over to the new plan. I mean, they do work for us still don't they, or not. Maybe we will all be working for them soon.

June 23, 2009 at 1:35 pm

MajorTaylor

John Edward, Those numbers hurt don't they? Guess the truth is too much for some people. Believe it or not John, the government is not the answer to everything. You keep your progressive change, and I will keep my money. I will decide how to spend my money, not people like you that depend on the government for everything!

June 23, 2009 at 1:33 pm

David Longstreet

Why is this article not in the op-ed section? It is neither fair or balanced, it is a one-sided diatribe. I would welcome such an article that presents both sides of the story...but this is a political advertisement and nothing more. It has no effect other than to preach to the converted.

June 23, 2009 at 1:32 pm

William

Another twist the real truth by Fox News. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. You keep skipping factual items to fortify your lies! Unbelievable! Talk about fair and balanced............. FAUX news indeed!

June 23, 2009 at 1:31 pm

NYC

It doesn't take a genius to figure out the breakdown is simple logic and makes perfect sense - most people who REALLY don't have heath insurance just simply do not elect to pay for it, but rather spend it on a $300 iphone, a trip to Los Cabos in the Al Gore Suite, oh, and spend $640/month on a BMW lease and only make 50-75K a year. I see it every day and around every corner - same reason why people purchased houses and had no business fianancing at a extremely inflated price - IRRESPONSIBLITY. Obama needs to attack the true root of the problem(encourage business to provide health coverage thru reasonable tax breaks for starters), not use government to sibsidize laziness and control the free people.

June 23, 2009 at 1:31 pm

kryten

"The uninsured can’t afford to buy coverage.” Well, income means nothing. What is more interesting is what part of after tax income the possible private insurance will take? And what part of possible after tax after "nust-do " payments the private healtn insurance will take? 50,000=40,000 at 20% taxes(IRS+local+SS+..). which is about 3300 per month. After mortage, car, and utilities and a very unexpensive family entertainment there are not so much free money for the family of 3 if they think about any savings." "The estimated 45 mn people without health insurance lacked health insurance for every day of the year" - which means that their preexisting condition will be probably not covered because of the gaps. And chronic condition will be less likely treated in ER, so if you get somethinh more serious then cold- your are done.

June 23, 2009 at 1:29 pm

Stacey Pokorney

Dr. Marsh, I agree with you about ER misuse, but I take issue with your commonly stated opinion that all insurance companies care about is profit. Do you think a government run plan will care more about patients? Anyone who has dealt with Medicare or Medicaid will agree that those plans care every bit as much about the bottom line. When insurance plans all centered on 80/20 coverage, patients also cared about the bottom line and shopped for the lowest cost. Now that insurance plans are expected to cover everything, patients are screaming about high premiums and inability to afford coverage. It's an ancient axiom that still applies: You get what you pay for. Unfair? Of course. But no one is screaming about how drivers can't afford car insurance are being legally forced to purchase it anyway.

June 23, 2009 at 1:29 pm

Jacoby

Very nicely written. Was very informative. Universal health care is a bad mistake.

June 23, 2009 at 1:28 pm

b fuller

Does anyone ever wonder why these left lunatics come to a conservative website such as FOX to read the news? Why not stay on MSObamaNBC and read what they want to read? Could it be that they are so insecure in their beliefs that they feel the compulsion to harangue another person with a different slant to an idea, usually one different from their narrow-minded observations which are usually stolen from another radical? Please go back to your liberal links and save yourself the pain of reading a normal site.

June 23, 2009 at 1:28 pm

Royel

I personally believe that the health care system in the United States is very good but there are significant inequities. I believe that addressing the source of the inequities rather than trying to invent a whole new system would be the way to go. Here are the three steps that I believe would resolve most of the inequities. 1. Cap non-monetary malpractice awards, my suggestion would be $100,000. Awards for actual out of pocket awards directly attributed to the malpractice should be unlimited. Where long term out of pockets expenses are involved, require that a trust fund be established to pay those costs. 2. Allow the creation of health care purchasing cooperatives that could then shop for the best price for insurance. These cooperatives should also be able to include small businesses as members making it possible for them to provide lower cost health insurance for their employees through the increased purchasing power of the cooperative. 3. Because employer paid health insurance amounts to pretax compensation, allow any individual paid health insurance cost be classed a pretax income and make it refundable for people where the insurance cost exceeds their income tax liability. Unfortunately, while relatively simple, it seems government is incapable of simple solutions so I’m not holding my breath.

June 23, 2009 at 1:28 pm

Blake

I found this article interesting, but lacking. Portability & ones ability to secure affordable coverage in the case of pre-existing conditions are not addressed within the current system. Let's face it, the fox guarding the hen house in healthcare is the health insurers. Access to group health insurance premiums will never be available to individuals and those with pre-existing conditions under this system. Can you imagine how many Americans are indentured to their employers because of the fear of being uninsurable or without health coverage? Isn't it a shame people can't leave a job for another or start their own business because of this health insurance racket! I'm not in favor of nationalized healthcare, but I am in favor of choice. Simply make the health insurance enjoyed by congress and government employees available to everyone at the same cost. No muss, no fuss, just an additional option for all!

June 23, 2009 at 1:28 pm

D. Montgomery

Great article. One area that no one is really talking about is those of us who has had their insurance canceled, and no one will insure us. When Blue Cross found out I had leukemia (Diagnosed 9 months after policy inception), they immediately canceled my insurance. I can afford insurance, but no one will insure me. Group insurance is my only answer, but I would have to change jobs or try to work at Starbucks part-time. This is quite a dilemma. There are many of us out there who can afford reasonable, normal insurance premiums, but no one will touch us. They want to take our money and not pay any claims. What a great concept. But it is immoral... and illegal. Dillard Montgomery

June 23, 2009 at 1:27 pm

StevieRay

If Canada's health system is so great, why do they come to the U.S. to get health care and then take the bill back to Canada. Where will we go, when we adopt a system like theirs? Cuba? Mexico? They want to provide 46 million (26 million citizens and 20 million illegal aliens) people with health care who will bring no money to the table. So if you have health care now, you're going to pay more (to cover the new people) and get less (because they can't raise taxes enough, so they'll have to curtail what you get and you'll have to compete with the new people for access).

June 23, 2009 at 1:26 pm

Awake

John, assuming, by the condescending tone of your letter, you are NOT among the 'less bright,elderly, poorly educated viewers/readers who make up most of Fox supporters', then you sir, should be capable of grammatical excellence. As a reader, who holds two masters degrees and has worked overseas for the last 15 years I can assure you that your idealistic view of socializ*ed medicine hasn't worked ANYWHERE and that by your own admission of politicians being out to garner votes should be able to see huge voter blocks can be bought with this pie-in-the-sky proposal. Wake up John.

June 23, 2009 at 1:26 pm

Frank Worrell

Excellent article. These facts are well known but intentionally ignored. This article should be shoved in the face of the weak-kneed Repuplicans who seem to acquiesce to the lying Democrats who want to destroy our system of medicine. Shame on the politicians. Shame on all of us who remain silent.

June 23, 2009 at 1:26 pm

Awake

Dear John, assuming, by the condescending tone of your letter, you are NOT among the 'less bright,elderly, poorly educated viewers/readers who make up most of Fox supporters', then you sir, should be capable of grammatical excellence. As a reader, who holds two masters degrees and has worked overseas for the last 15 years I can assure you that your idealistic view of socialized medicine hasn't worked ANYWHERE and that by your own admission of politicians being out to garner votes should be able to see huge voter blocks can be bought with this pie-in-the-sky proposal. Wake up John.

June 23, 2009 at 1:25 pm

about this blog

  • Elizabeth MacDonald is the stocks editor for Fox Business Network. She is recognized as one of the top prize-winning business journalists in the country, and has received 14 awards, including the top prize in business journalism, the Gerald Loeb Award for Distinguished Business Journalism, and the Newswomen's Club of New York Front Page Award for Excellence in Investigative Journalism.

browse posts

most popular posts