There’s a video that is getting around via e-mail, which contains an alarming claim about Obamacare, aka the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
The video is a statement by Congressman Mike Rogers (R-Michigan) at a House hearing in 2009 on the then Obamacare bill. Beginning at around the 1:20 mark, Rogers made an alarming claim that “Section 141” of the bill says the government can “reach in” and “dis-enroll anyone” — you or me — from our present healthcare plan!
So I did some nosing around on the net and discovered that Congressman Rogers somewhat distorted the truth.
According to NationalJournal.com:
“Section 141 of the House bill simply establishes the Health Choices Administration. The more controversial section Rogers was referring to is Section 142, which lays out the responsibilities and authority of the new agency’s commissioner. That person will be charged with making sure plans are enrolled in the Health Insurance Exchange and that plans in the exchange are offering adequate benefits for an affordable price. If a plan is not up to standard, the bill gives the commissioner power to levy fines or ‘[suspend] enrollment of individuals under such plan.’ However, this would only stop continued enrollment in the plan, not force people from their current insurance. For plans that continue to fall below requirements, the commissioner would work with state regulators to terminate the plan. This step would be taken only after warnings, and enrollees would be re-entered in the health insurance exchange to choose another comparable plan. So Rogers’ explanation of the section is technically right, but it comes with a caveat. Rather than the government being able to indiscriminately disenroll individuals and businesses from plans, people would only be removed from substandard plans after repeated warnings and attempts to correct those plans.“
In the video, Congressman Rogers also made another claim that was upsetting. He said:
“Here’s the other tradeoff. According to… the National Cancer Intelligence Centre for the United Kingdom and the Canadian Cancer Registry, here’s the tradeoff that they picked by having government-run health care. If you get prostate cancer, you have a less chance of survivability than you do in the United States. And that’s the same for skin cancer, breast cancer, bladder cancer, cervical cancer, kidney cancer, ovarian cancer, leukemia, and the list goes on and on and on.”
This is what NationalJournal.com says:
“Rogers’ office cites statistics from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Intelligence Centre in the U.K. and the Canadian Cancer Registry. They show that for most kinds of cancer, the five-year survival rates in the United States are higher than in Britain or Canada, which both have single-payer systems. The fact that Britain’s cancer survival rates are low have been well-reported; according to a study in The Lancet Oncology, England’s five-year overall cancer survival rates were fifth-worst out of 22 countries. Canada’s survival rates are much closer to those in the United States. According to the data supplied by Rogers’ office, Canada was within 7 percentage points of the United States on all but brain cancer, with most falling within 3 points. Canada actually leads the United States on cervical and pancreatic cancers.Additionally, that same Lancet study noted that other countries with single-payer systems have comparable rates to the United States, including Finland, Sweden and Iceland. In fact, Cuba’s system even showed a higher survival rate for breast cancer, although researchers admit that may have been due to poor record-keeping.”
Nancy Pelosi was wrong when, on March 11, 2010, she said in a speech that “we have to pass the [Obamacare] bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
The PPACA law that is Obamacare is so long (906 pages) and so complicated that, two years after Obama had signed the bill into law, we still don’t really know what’s in it.
H/t beloved Wendy & Tina