The following Truth Test is about a 30-second commercial paid for by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which describes itself on its Web site as "the world's largest business federation representing 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations. More than 96 percent of U.S. Chamber members are small businesses with 100 employees or fewer. As the voice of business, the Chamber's core purpose is to fight for free enterprise before Congress, the White House, regulatory agencies, the courts, the court of public opinion, and governments around the world." (Source: U.S. Chamber of Commerce: http://uschamber.org/about/default.htm)

The chamber has created a separate entity called the Campaign for Responsible Health Reform which established a Web site and began educating its membership as well as the general public about "the need for meaningful health reform that protects employer-sponsored health insurance, and shows what's at risk with government-run health care. We want people to understand what's at stake and send a message to their elected officials that government-run health care is the wrong approach to reform." (Source: Campaign for Responsible Health Reform: http://www.responsiblehealthreform.org/)

The 30-second ad is set to run from Aug. 31 through Sept. 7 on the networks of 9NEWS at a cost of $131,150.

QUOTE: You know the type. There's a reason why some want to make a fast sale. Now, Congress wants to make the fast sale on government-run health care.

TRUTH: This is opinion but both claims are worth exploring.

There are some who argue that Congress is rushing to pass a health care bill. Others would argue there's nothing "fast" about a debate that's been going on since former President Bill Clinton's first term which was 16 years ago.

The second point depends on your definition of government-run health care. By all accounts, the federal government currently actively runs health care programs like Medicare and one through the Veterans Administration and jointly with state governments operates programs like Medicaid and S-CHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program).

The concern from groups like the chamber is if the government creates a "public option" that sets rates and coverage, it ultimately crowds out private insurers and becomes a de facto single-payer system run by the government.

"When you say that you're going to have a quote public option that competes with the private corporation health insurers, you're either going to have one of two things happen," Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) said in an interview with 9NEWS' YOUR SHOW on Sept. 6 (www.9News.com/yourshow). "One, you're just going to have another competitor and we already have 1,500 health insurers or you're going to have a government-run system that has an advantage over private health insurance companies and they drive them out of business."

President Barack Obama has described creating a system every federal employee currently has, which is access to numerous different private insurers whose plans are subsidized by taxpayers. Specifically, he has said the public option is not "about socialized medicine and government takeovers, long lines and rationed care, decisions made by bureaucrats and not doctors... It is important for our reform efforts to build on our traditions here in the United States. So when you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They're not telling the truth."

He described it instead as injecting competition in the marketplace, thereby lowering costs to everyone and allowing for more people to purchase coverage with the help of government subsidies, thereby lowering costs further. (Source: Chicago Sun-Times, June 16, 2009: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/06/obama_says_his_public_option_i.html)

Recently, conversations about the "public option" have included concepts like non-profit health cooperatives that the government would not run. Some Democrats say no matter the form it takes there needs to be another competitor into the system.

"If you advantage a public option in such a way that it puts the private insurance sector in a position they can't sustain, that's not the appropriate way," Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colorado) said in an interview with 9NEWS' YOUR SHOW on Sept. 6 (www.9News.com/yourshow). "I won't support a public option for example that's based on Medicare reimbursement rates. That's just a prescription to continue the system that we now have. There may be other ways to inject this competition into the marketplace but that's really where the nub of this is: how do we get that competition that drives down costs and expenses so this is a more affordable system?"

Further, many, including the Colorado Medical Society, would argue medical decision making is not always made by doctors and patients.

Edie Sonn, the communications director for the CMS wrote to 9NEWS in an e-mail: "There's no question that the fact of whether or not something is covered by insurance can drive the patient's decision about what treatment to receive. If your doctor has advised you to have a mastectomy and you suddenly learn that your health insurance won't cover it and you can't afford the $50k or whatever it'll cost, you are likely to delay the surgery until you either fight them successfully or find some other way to pay for it. And if you die while you're still trying to figure it out, one could say that the insurance company made that decision for you ipso facto. Insurers' decisions about services they will cover is already affecting the decision about what care patients get. There's nothing in the House health bill or the proposals being considered in the Senate that will change this or make it worse than it is now." (Source: E-mail to 9NEWS, Aug. 4, 2009)

QUOTE: What don't they want you to know? Maybe it's the trillion dollar price tag.

TRUTH: Without knowing exactly what the final proposal will look like, it's hard to say for certain what any type of health care reform will cost, but the measures introduced in the House so far have come with a price tag of around $1 trillion over the next 10 years, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. (Source: Congressional Quarterly, Aug. 11, 2009). The $1 trillion comes from a host of sources including almost $500 billion in net Medicare and Medicaid savings included in the bill. Those savings have not yet been detailed.

QUOTE: Or maybe the billions in higher taxes.

TRUTH: This is true, but it could use some context.

If half of H.R. 3200 is paid for through Medicare and Medicaid savings, the other half comes from an increased tax on the "wealthiest 1.2 percent of Americans." (Source: E-mail from House Leadership Office, Aug. 12, 2009)

Under H.R. 3200, a tax surcharge would be added on couples who make from $350,000-$500,000 ($280,000-$400,000 for individuals). They would pay an additional 1 percent in taxes. Couples who make between $500,000-$1 million ($400,000-$800,000 for individuals) would pay an additional 1.5 percent. Couples who make more than $1 million ($800,000 for individuals) would pay 5.4 percent more. According to the PolitFact Web site, that means a family making $1 million would pay $9,000 in new taxes under H.R. 3200 (Source: PolitiFact, a service provided by the St. Petersburg Times newspaper and winner of the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for its reporting : http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/14/us-chamber-commerce/us-chamber-commerce-ad-says-health-reform-plan-wou/)

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says the new tax would impact less than 2.2 million households in America. (Source: Tax Policy Center: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=2426)

QUOTE: Or the $239 billion in debt we'll owe when the sale is final.

TRUTH: This is true as it relates to the House versions of the bill over the next 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. (Source: www.cbo.gov) In the Senate, the future debt from the Senate Health Committee is even higher ($597 billion over 10 years).

Supporters of the House plan say the actual health care reform measure is paid for in full and does not have any deficit spending, but the $239 billion comes from maintaining "current Medicare physician payment rates." If it is not enacted, they say "existing rates will be severely cut - ultimately hurting patients' access to doctors and quality health care. Because this is an existing policy, and not technically new spending, the House voted to exempt these Medicare physician payment provisions from PAYGO (Pay as you go) rules earlier this year." (Source: E-mail from House Leadership Office, Aug. 12, 2009)

QUOTE: The fast sale on government-run health care. No way. Let's get serious and reform health care the right way.

TRUTH: This is an opinion.