Print edition: 
In the absence of formal legislation on health care for much of the year, members of Congress and others could itemize grievances about the reform effort freely, without regard to any facts.
The House vote earlier this month finally gave reform a working framework not only for the purposes of Senate consideration but also public debate.
Yet critics, including Republicans in Kansas' congressional delegation, continue to claim things about the legislation that are contradicted by independent sources such as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
For example, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., fretted in Lawrence last week about "rationing of Medicare" and the endangering of the rural health care delivery system (though Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently said "the biggest winners of health care reform will be rural Americans").
Rep. Jerry Moran, R-Hays, has contended that the bill will "diminish health care for Kansans," as it "explodes the deficit," "eliminates jobs with an employer mandate, and enables bureaucrats to define what form of health coverage is acceptable for Americans."
Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, has said the bill would push people into a public-funded option and eliminate "5.5 million American jobs." At the Capitol rally on Nov. 5, he suggested it would "take away your freedom to choose your doctor," decide "how much you're going to pay for your insurance, where you can get your health care."
There are problems with such statements when measured against analyses by nonpartisan Web sites:
* Rather than constitute a government takeover of health care, the "public option" could cover just 6 million Americans by 2019, and at premiums "somewhat higher" than the average private plan (FactCheck.org).
* According to the CBO, "the plan is in the black through 2014, dips briefly into the red in 2015 and 2016, and then pays for itself again in 2017, 2018 and 2019. Over 10 years, the bill reduces the deficit by $104 billion" (PolitiFact.com).
* The proposed cuts to Medicare Advantage would affect only the enhanced (and publicly subsidized) benefits now enjoyed by 22 percent of those on Medicare. "Under no circumstances would any senior receive less in benefits than the other 78 percent of the Medicare population" (FactCheck.org).
* The new Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research would not mandate coverage or tell insurers what they must or must not cover. The House bill outlines basic coverage and creates a new committee to recommend the coverage specifics, but it's false to say the committee would dictate the plans to be purchased (PolitiFact.com).
* "The truth is the House legislation would likely have a 'small' effect on jobs, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office" (FactCheck.org).
The Kansans in Congress have some well-founded concerns, including whether the proposed reform actually will lower health care costs. But going forward — and especially with many of the decreasing numbers of Kansans who still have health insurance facing 2010 premium hikes — it would be nice if the state's well-insured lawmakers would go easy on the hyperbole and focus their criticism of the health reform on the facts.
