Sen. Sessions Mixes Up "Fact" And "Fiction"

Conveniently, Sessions Thinks This Specific CBO Score Is False

Sen. Sessions:

Fiction: The bill's total cost is $848 billion.
Fact: When fully implemented, the bill will cost $2.5 trillion.
[Sessions.Senate.gov, "Fiction vs. Fact: Reid Health Care Bill." 12/8/09]

The $848 billion price tag of the Senate bill comes from the Congressional Budget Office.  Like many other Republicans, Sen. Sessions' opinion on CBO analyses changes depending on the results. 

Sen. Sessions Used CBO Analysis To Support His Argument.  During an interview on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Sen. Sessions said: "And I do believe that the most important failure, though, in the bill was that the future legal immigration system would not work and was shown only to reduce illegal immigration into America by 13 percent, according to our own Congressional Budget Office." [Fox News, Hannity & Colmes, 6/28/07]

Sen. Sessions References The CBO Four Times In Senate Floor Statement To Make His Point.  While speaking on the Senate floor, Sen. Sessions said: "Our own Congressional Budget Office just on June 4, this month, did an analysis of the legislation. They concluded that when the -- if this bill were to become law, illegal immigration would only be reduced 13 percent. What an astounding number. Only 13 percent? ...My analysis before CBO came out was that the bill would not be effective. It had loophole after loophole. They have concluded the same. They say there will be a 25 percent reduction at the border, but an increase in visa overstays, netting only a 13 percent reduction. That's in the Congressional Budget Office report, available to every senator...It will cost, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury of the United States $30 billion -- not from expenses of enforcement, none of that, but for additional welfare and other benefits that will be paid to those who come into the country illegally." [Sessions Floor Statement, 6/26/07, via LexisNexis]

Sessions Needs A Calculator

Sen. Sessions:

Fiction: The bill will not add one dime to the deficit.
Fact: By any fair analysis, the bill increases spending and debt.
[Sessions.Senate.gov, "Fiction vs. Fact: Reid Health Care Bill." 12/8/09]

Senate Health Care Bill Will Reduce Deficit By Up To $777 Billion In Twenty Years.  According to the Associated Press, the Senate health care reform "bill would reduce deficits by $127 billion over a decade and by as much as $650 billion in the 10 years that follow." [Associated Press via MSNBC, 11/18/09]

Sessions Is Wrong On The Legislation's Treatment Of Doctors

Sen. Sessions:

Fiction: Physician pay will be permanently fixed.
Fact: The bill provides only a 1-year fix, and then calls for a 23 percent cut in 2011.
[Sessions.Senate.gov, "Fiction vs. Fact: Reid Health Care Bill." 12/8/09]

FactCheck.org: Current Legislation Increases Payments To Doctors To Keep Them In Practice.  FactCheck.org reported: "Lose your own doctor? Many people experience that today, if their employer changes insurance plans, if they change jobs, or if they become uninsured for any reason. Wait longer for care? Given the shortage of family doctors, which is only expected to worsen, we can expect wait times to increase even if the system remains untouched. Pending overhaul legislation aims to ease that, in fact, by increasing certain payments to physicians and making other adjustments to encourage training of primary care physicians." [FactCheck.org, 9/9/09, emphasis added]

Both House And Senate Bills Include Measures To Support Doctors.  According to a study conducted by the Commonwealth Fund: "The House and Senate bills include a number of provisions to increase primary care payment rates under Medicare and Medicaid, cover effective preventive services without patient cost-sharing, and support community and employer prevention and wellness programs.  These provisions could begin to change the orientation of our health system toward primary care and away from specialty care, counter the impending shortage of primary care providers, and lay the groundwork for more fundamental payment reforms." [Commonwealth Fund, November 2009]

Sessions Wrong On How Medicare Changes Will Affect Seniors

Sen. Sessions:

Fiction: $465 billion in Medicare cuts won't impact seniors.
Fact: A massive raid on Medicare will certainly weaken an already financially troubled program. [Sessions.Senate.gov, "Fiction vs. Fact: Reid Health Care Bill." 12/8/09]

Changes To Medicare Advantage Come With Extra Benefits For All Medicare Enrollees.  FactCheck.org reported: "The CBO has estimated that the move would change the value of the extra benefits Medicare Advantage participants get, but they would not receive fewer benefits than the rest of seniors who aren't on the Advantage plans. The bill does add some extras for Medicare beneficiaries, eliminating copays and deductibles for preventive services, for example." [FactCheck.org, 12/2/09, emphasis added]

CBO: Cost Changes To Medicare Made From Savings. According to the CBO letter to Senator Baucus: "Changes to the Medicare program and changes to Medicaid and CHIP other than those associated directly with expanded insurance coverage:  Savings from those provisions are estimated to total $93 billion in 2019, and CBO projects that, in combination, they will increase by 10 percent to 15 percent per year in the next decade." [CBO.gov, 10/7/09]

Sessions Makes The Wrong Case For Lowering Family Premiums

Sen. Sessions:

Fiction: Family premiums will decrease.
Fact: Except for those receiving subsidies, premiums may increase-some up to 13 percent.
[Sessions.Senate.gov, "Fiction vs. Fact: Reid Health Care Bill." 12/8/09]

Gruber: Senate Bill Lowers Premiums And Improves Coverage.  In his analysis of the Senate health care bill, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber wrote: "It is worth noting that these savings are all in addition to the more generous benefits that these groups will receive through the exchange compared to the non-group market...So not only does the Senate proposal lower premiums, it does so while also improving coverage."  [Gruber, "The Senate Bill Lowers Non-Group Premiums: Updated for New CBO Estimates," 11/27/09, via Politico; emphasis added]

"Most People Covered By Big Employers Would Gain More Protections Without Major Changes."  The Associated Press reported: "Most people covered by big employers would gain more protections without major changes. One exception would be those with high-cost insurance plans, whose premiums could rise as a result of a tax on insurers issue the coverage."  [Associated Press via Canon City Daily Record, 11/30/09]

Gruber: Senate Bill Will Cause Premiums For Low Income Americans To Drop Thousands Of Dollars.  Politico reported that MIT economist Jonathan Gruber found "that people purchasing individual insurance would save an annual $200 (singles) to $500 (families) in 2009 dollars. And people with low incomes would receive premium tax credits that would reduce the price that they pay for health insurance by as much as $2,500 to $7,500." [Politico, 11/28/09]

Gruber: "Reform Will Significantly Reduce, Not Increase, Non-Group Premiums."  In his analysis of the Senate health care bill, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber wrote: "the key point is that, as of now, the most authoritative objective voice in this debate suggests that reform will significantly reduce, not increase, non-group premiums."  [Gruber, "The Senate Bill Lowers Non-Group Premiums: Updated for New CBO Estimates," 11/27/09, via Politico]

Despite Sessions' Claim Of "Fiction," Democratic Health Care Reform Will Lower Premiums

Sen. Sessions:

Fiction: Including a "public option" will lower insurance costs.
Fact: Public option plans will have higher premiums than private plans.
[Sessions.Senate.gov, "Fiction vs. Fact: Reid Health Care Bill." 12/8/09]

Gruber: Similar Health Care Reform In Massachusetts Caused A 40% Reduction In Premiums.  Jonathan Gruber found that after Massachusetts enacted "a health care reform similar to the one contemplated at the federal level," the state saw "an enormous reduction in the cost of non-group insurance in the state: the average individual premium in the state fell from $8537 at the end of 2006 to $5143 in mid-2009, a 40% reduction while the rest of the nation was seeing a 14% increase."  [Gruber, "The Senate Bill Lowers Non-Group Premiums: Updated for New CBO Estimates," 11/27/09, via Politico; emphasis original]

Gruber: Senate Bill Creates Savings For Singles & Families.  MIT economist Jonathan Gruber found "that the [health care] savings are large for both singles and families, and that they are particularly large for the lowest income families that qualify for premium credits under the Senate Bill but would be left to face the full high non-group premium without legislation.  In particular, I [found] that the single individual would save over $2500 at low incomes (175% of poverty), and would save $200 even at higher incomes (425% of poverty or higher).  For families, the savings are much larger, ranging from nearly $7500 for low income families at (175% of poverty) to $500 for higher incomes (425% of poverty or higher)." [Gruber, "The Senate Bill Lowers Non-Group Premiums: Updated for New CBO Estimates," 11/27/09, via Politico; parentheses original]

No Matter How Many Times The GOP Says Otherwise, Federal Dollars Will Not Be Used Towards Abortion

Sen. Sessions:

Fiction: Taxpayer dollars will not be used for abortion.
Fact: Payment for abortion coverage in the public plan is not prohibited.
[Sessions.Senate.gov, "Fiction vs. Fact: Reid Health Care Bill." 12/8/09]

The Bill Clearly States The HHS Secretary Cannot Allow Federal Funds To Pay For Abortions.  Page 118, Lines 4-25 through Page 119, Lines 1-8 reads:

(C) PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ABORTION SERVICES IN COMMUNITY HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION -

(i) Determination by Secretary. - The Secretary may not determine, in accordance with subparagraph (A)(ii), that the community health insurance option established under section 1323 shall provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) as part of benefits for the plan year unless the Secretary - (I) assures compliance with the requirements of paragraph (2); (II) assures, in accordance with applicable provisions of generally accepted accounting requirements, circulars on funds management of the Office of Management and Budget, and guidance on accounting of the Government Accountability Office, that no Federal funds are used for such coverage; and (III) notwithstanding section 1323(e)(1)(C) or any other provision of this title, takes all necessary steps to assure that the United States does not bear the insurance risk for a community health insurance option's coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i). [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, accessed 11/19/09]

Outside Groups Acknowledge That Bill Does Not Allow Federal Funds To Go Towards Abortions.  Jodi Jacobson, Senior Political Editor of Reproductive Health Reality Check, wrote of the Senate bill's abortion provisions:

No Federal Funds for Abortion Coverage in the Community Health Insurance Option:  If the Secretary chooses to cover abortion services in the public plan beyond those allowed by Hyde, he/she must:

• Guarantee compliance with the provision prohibiting the use of Federal funds to pay for abortions (beyond those allowed by Hyde);
• Guarantee that, according to three different accounting standards, no Federal funds will be used; and
• Take all necessary steps to ensure that the United States does not bear the insurance risk for abortions that do not meet the Hyde exceptions in the public plan. [RHRealityCheck.org, 11/19/09]

61% Of Americans Think The Phrase "Government Money Would Be Used To Pay For Abortions" Is A Scare Tactic.  During a Bloomberg poll (of 1,004 Americans and with a margin of error of 3.1) conducted from September 10-14, 2009, in response to being asked if they thought the argument "Government money would be used to pay for abortions" was a legitimate issue, a distortion, or a scare tactic, 33% said it was legitimate, 6% were unsure, and 61% of Americans said the argument was a scare tactic.  [Bloomberg Poll via PollingReport.com, accessed 9/28/09]