The bill was introduced during the first session of the 111th Congress as part of an effort of the Democratic Party leadership to enact health care reform.
The CBO director subsequently noted that, in terms of total National Health Expenditure, non-governmental spending will increase as coverage expands.
[2][3] The bill was originally sponsored by Representatives John Dingell, Charles Rangel, Henry Waxman, George Miller, Pete Stark, Frank Pallone, and Robert Andrews.
[15] According to Division A, Title I, Subtitle C, Section 123 of HR 3200, a Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall be established to be chaired by the Surgeon General of the United States.
One often-cited provision of the un-passed bill would have authorized Medicare reimbursement for physicians who provide voluntary counseling about such subjects as living wills.
[16][17] The provision is based on a separate bill that was cosponsored by Republican Charles Boustany of Louisiana, a surgeon,[18] and is similar to end-of-life counseling signed by President George W.
My parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their level of productivity in society, whether they are worthy of health care.However, the "level of productivity in society" or panels claim is not mentioned in the actual legislation,[22] which is structured primarily to amend[22] a specific clause in the Social Security Act, Section 1861[23] of definitions that are used in sections regarding reimbursements for end-of-life counseling, including the use of Advance Directives.
[25] Blumenauer said that as recently as April 2008 then-governor Palin supported end-of-life counseling as part of Health Care Decisions Day.
[30] Analysts who examined the end-of-life provision Palin cited agreed that it merely authorized Medicare reimbursement for physicians who provide voluntary counseling for advance health care directives (including living wills).
[38] Republican Newt Gingrich defended the death panel claim,[39] but previously praised the Gundersen Lutheran Health System for encouraging the widespread use of Advance Directives.
[45] The "death panel" argument was endorsed by an erroneous editorial in the Investor's Business Daily, which analogized the bill to the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom and editorialized: "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.
"[46] The Investor's Business Daily editorialists had to beat a retreat and quickly retracted its claim after it was pointed out that Hawking was in fact British, and had lived his entire life in the United Kingdom with treatment from the NHS.
"[48] On a separate issue, physician and conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer has criticized what he sees as a naive focus on living wills by the policymakers over other types of medical advice.
[52] A poll done by Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates for the AARP stated that only 37% of Americans correctly identified the definition of the 'public option' being proposed, numbers very close to respondents guessing randomly among answers.
[50] A number of town hall meetings held by members of Congress during the August 2009 congressional recess were the site of protests and disruptions by opponents of this health care reform legislation.
[57] Steven Pearlstein of The Washington Post wrote that the concerns raised in most of these town hall disruptions are factually incorrect claims made by some conservative members of Congress and some in the right-wing media in opposition of the reform bill.
[60] Rasmussen Reports found in a late-August survey that a 49% plurality of Americans believe that protesters genuinely express their own views while 37% consider them to be a creation of special interest groups and lobbyists.
[62][63] Ezra Klein has written in The Washington Post'' in late August that, in his opinion, polls now indicate that senior citizens are becoming fearful of healthcare reform, due to concerns that funding subsidies for the uninsured would require cuts to the popular Medicare program.
He said that the specific changes "don't involve anything of the kind (most of the savings would come from reducing overpayments to the private insurers that participate in the Medicare Advantage program)".
[66] President Obama said at a White House news conference on July 22 that, without changes, the system is guaranteed "to basically break the federal budget".
[68] Gail Wilensky, a deputy assistant to President Bush Snr advising him on health and welfare issues from 1992 to 1993 and previously a director of Medicare and Medicaid has expressed concern that this might affect seniors access to health care if the changes are made too quickly,[69] while other activists such as Stuart Guterman of the Commonwealth Fund argue that Medicare Advantage plans cost the taxpayer $1,000 per policyholder more than if the person had been insured through traditional fee for services.
[73] The Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding for abortions in government related health programs unless they are performed in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.
A political controversy has broken out about whether or not the 'public plan' in HR 3200 will cover abortions, which, if done, would be funded by premiums paid by individuals to that agency and not by outside payments.