Reply With Quote
Link?
…do so again tonight.
Our liar-in-Chief will go before both houses of Congress tonight and give his 1,435,353rd speech on Health Care, er…Health Insurance, no…Health Care; wait, I think it’s Health Insurance again…reform. I don’t expect his speech will change the hearts and minds of anyone. For one thing, no one the president needs to reach will be watching. The ratings for every televised address the president has done on this issue have dropped with each subsequent appearance…as do his personal approval ratings every time he opens his mouth on the subject. I expect this televised appearance will follow that pattern.
And, if the White House lead-ins are accurate, we’ve heard this speech before; both from Obama and, also, from his subordinates…over and over, ad nauseum. The President, himself, has given over 110 speeches on Health Care (Insurance) Reform since taking office. And, if the speeches weren’t televised, they’ve been dutifully hyped by the media afterward.
Nonetheless, he’s going to go before your elected representatives tonight and – once again – make his case for enacting Health Care legislation. And, since the White House is saying he won’t be proposing new legislation or changing any of the major elements of his plan, we have a pretty good idea of the lies he’s going to spew forth doing it. While everyone, who bothers to watch, has already heard the lies, and the rebutted facts debunking them, let’s repeat them – here – as a prediction and to remind us just how dishonest a process this whole reform effort has been.
So, in no particular order, the top five untruths, misrepresentations, or outright lies you’ll hear tonight – if you watch.
(a) President Obama will say there are 42 to 47 (it changes) million uninsured Americans.
This falls into the category of lies repeated – and debunked – so often it’s just white noise that not many people even hear anymore. The actual number, when you weed out the wealthy that self-insure, the young who choose not to insure, the illegal aliens who shouldn’t be insured (at anyone’s expense but their own), the elderly who will be enrolled in Medicare when they become ill and need a doctor, and the poor who are either underreported by Medicaid or who – similar to the elderly – will be enrolled when they show up needing medical care, you end up with a number somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 million.
And, in a country of 350 million people, I think we can come up with a health care system that accommodates the needs of these people without completely dismantling a health care system – and 17% of our economy along with it – with which 85-90% of the population is satisfied. This is why Obama has to falsely inflate the numbers.
But, the 42 (or 47) million number is a non-starter. The President might just as well get up there tonight and say we need to enact this legislation to insure the rich, healthy, and illegal aliens. In other words, ask Americans to pay for people to be insured who don’t need it, don’t won’t it, or shouldn’t get it at their expense.
(b) President Obama will say his plan is “deficit neutral.”
This is a bald-faced lie. None of the proposals yet submitted – including HR3200 – has been deficit neutral, (at least not in the first decade). Both the CBO and OMB have said as much with varying but undeniable numbers. And, even those proposals that claim they will be deficit neutral, beginning 10 years out, should be viewed in the context – and through the rightful skepticism – of our experience, as Americans, with every other massive government program ever developed; beginning with the two major health-related ones, Medicare and Medicaid.
The administration’s claims rely heavily on wild-assed guesses (known in the bidness as “assumptions”) about revenues and costs. Name one government program that has even come close to estimating projected figures on anything. And, if you do manage to come up with one – it won’t be Medicare or Medicaid. , just look at Obama’s projections on how his stimulus plan would affect unemployment over the past 8 months – and the reality. They bear no resemblance to one another.
Right or wrong, you can’t predict the unexpected. Nobody knows how much money will be raised by his schemes to tax or streamline or reduce fraud. And, nobody knows how much will be spent either. What we do know is that you can’t think of a government en lement program that has come in costing less than treble the amount estimated at the outset.
If any of his cost-saving schemes would work, we’d of already applied them to Medicare and Medicaid.
So he's going to say "deficit neutral" and we should point and laugh. It's not going to be deficit neutral. It's going to cost more than expected and the schemes he proposes to make it deficit neutral are going to generate less revenue or savings than expected. The only proposed plans that would be deficit neutral have been Republican plans or the suggestions of people like John Mackey.
But, if we’re all honest with one another, we know the point of the whole exercise is neither to provide universal health care nor save money doing it. It’s to advance a socialist objective, exert control over individual Americans, redistribute wealth, and to put Obama in the history books with some monumental legacy.
(c) President Obama will identify the “obstacles” to this progressive and necessary reform as one or more of the various demons he’s invoked since he started this crusade. Most certainly, Republicans will head that list; but, you’re just as likely to hear about the money-grubbing insurance companies or, even, the tonsil-stealing, foot-amputating doctors.
It doesn’t really matter, Obama needs a villain and he certainly can’t point to the vast majority of Americans that a) see no need for the reform or b) see a need for reform but don’t want it to be nationalized or socialized medicine.
Yes, I’m sure there’ll be references to the “mobsters” or, to use Reid’s term, “evil mongers” who have more vehemently opposed his plan at Tea Party and Town Hall meetings over the past month and more.
But, those are all red herrings.
The Democrats have a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress. If this were just unwarranted partisan rancor, President Obama would have already made the case to his party and they’d of rammed through some legislation by now…after all, they did it with the Stimulus Bill. But, he can’t do that because, he realizes he doesn’t even have the unanimous support of his own party…he doesn’t have the votes to pass this monstrosity.
Why? Because the Democrat legislators still listening to their cons uents know how unpopular, dangerous, unwarranted, and unnecessary is this stupid plan. I think he’s in a hot box with his own party with many of them, standing on third base, saying they won’t vote for a plan without a “public option” (government option) and with just as many, at home plate, saying they won’t vote for one with it.
It’s entertaining to watch. Republicans have nothing to do with his inability to convince his own party. If he wanted to blame the true obstructionists, he should be pointing at the congressmen of his own party. But, the only problem with that is it would also be blaming their cons uents – regular Americans…a bunch of ‘em. Probably more than the 10 million uninsured and possible approaching the 47 million Obama says are uninsured.
(d) President Obama will claim his opponents – and, Republicans in particular – don’t have an alternative plan; that they are satisfied with the status quo and want to do nothing.
Patently untrue.
While believing – and saying – that doing nothing would be better than doing what is being proposed in HR3200 or by President Obama, that’s not what his opponents are proposing. Saying so is dishonest or ignorant. It’s not a proposal to do nothing and keep the status quo; it’s an assertion that doing nothing, while not acceptable, is still better than what is being proposed.
Granted, the mainstream media hasn’t exactly given Republicans the opportunity, air time, or column inches, to make their case, that they have to the White House but, nonetheless, there are proposals out there. But, maybe, if Obama had met with Republicans, more recently than April, he would be more familiar with the alternatives they’re forwarding.
In fact, Republicans have issued a proposed framework and they have floated several specific reform proposals from tort reform to making individual policies tax deductible (like employer plans), to lifting government regulations prohibiting interstate portability of policies being the three that occur to me off the top of my head.
(e) President Obama will say the “public” option won’t be subsidized.
In reassuring tones, he’s going to promise the “public” option (or the compromise “co-ops”) isn’t a Trojan Horse for an eventual single-payer system. He’ll use terms like “compe ion” and “choice” to bolster his argument. And, it will be done in the context of demonizing the evil, profit-driven insurance companies or sadistic physicians that hack on your relatives, unnecessarily, for money.
It is the “compe ion” statement that requires the lie; although, I believe his plan will ultimately put the lie to the “choice” statement, as well, by driving Americans from commercial insurers to the “public” option using various means, including, undercutting on price, more onerous regulations (i.e. requiring commercial insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions or basic treatments not normally covered), and insurance mandates.
But, back to the first point because, it is the most immediate lie.
Everyone – even Barney Frank, who forgets to wipe up his chin drool – knows if the public option is subsidized, at all, it will not provide true compe ion for the private insurance market. It automatically gives an unfair advantage to the “public” option. So he will lie and say that it won't be subsidized.
There is simply no way the President or the Democrats will allow the public option to fail once it has been established. When it starts operating in the red – and it will, damn near immediately – the Democrats will call for subsidizing it saying, "Oh, we can't take people's insurance away now and we can't raise premiums for all these people!"
Already, four of the five bills passed out of committee have included mandates and subsidies for those who cannot afford to pay for insurance. Many – not all – but, a vast majority, of the people who are mandated to be insured (I think the proposed fine, for being uninsured, is up to $3,800) and can’t afford it – therefore receiving the subsidies – will head straight to the “public” option.
That’s subsidizing out of the box. Why not just make them eligible for Medicare or Medicaid? It seems to me the laws for those programs would be easier to amend than creating this monstrosity out of whole cloth. But, that’s just me.
So, to sum up, the president is going to stay true to form tonight. He will lie his ass off.
Also remember this, it’s not just about the “public” option. The media have concentrated, almost exclusively, on the debate over the “public” option…and, in the process, have tried to make it appear this is the only objection opponents to the plan have. I think that’s intentional on their part.
Considering the s game, of compromising with a “co-op” plan or dropping the “public” option altogether (and this would only happen if he were able to convince the rabid left it would be included by hook, or crook, somewhere down the road), in which he’s liable to engage tonight, this would be a perfect setup to then say, “look, we’ve dropped the ‘public’ option, any other opposition is unreasonable, right?”
Yeah, wrong. The “public” option is only one of a number of things wrong with his plan. Here are some others – all taken from various Obama proposals or from the several bills being batted around Congress.
a) Forcing insurers to accept all applicants.ObamaCare is anti-prosperity. It is going to hurt our economy in a deep and lasting way and not just because of the “public” option.
If you force insurers to accept all applicants, no matter the risks, one of two things must happen. You raise premiums to cover the inevitable costs of insuring anyone who applies (and brings with them pre-existing conditions, risky behaviors, or deteriorating health) or, you limit what you cover in terms of care. I suspect there will be legislation prohibiting the companies from excluding certain medical treatments and therapies so, you’re left with raising premiums.
When that happens, the “public” option will be the safe harbor to which people will flee.
This proposal alone could put most insurers out of business.
This will lead to the second big problem (and, I alluded to it in one of the lies above).
b) Subsidizing premiums for those unable to afford private insurance.
From where is that money coming? Yep. Taxpayers. So, not only will forcing insurance companies to raise rates (or cut care [unlikely to be allowed]), it will impose a new burden on the roughly 50% of Americans paying income taxes.
Like most – probably all but, I can’t be sure – Democrat proposals, over the past eight months, this is a money pit; created at a time when we’re in the middle of Biden’s “Great Recession.” Not exactly an ideal time to impose a new dead-weight loss on the economy.
It’s never the right time to raise taxes but, even the dumbest Democrats (Obama apparently excepted) know doing so during an economic downturn is a horrible idea.
c) Individual Mandates.
ObamaCare, backed by the threat of fees/fines (more taxes) – latest proposal set at $3,800.00 – for people who remain uninsured, will require individuals to have health insurance. The government is going to force you to spend your money (or, they’ll spend mine if you can’t afford it) on this – even if you don’t want.
Sorry, but the auto insurance analogy doesn’t work. We require people to carry liability insurance so the harm they cause others, can be repaired. The law does not require vehicle owners to have comprehensive insurance protecting their own vehicles. Exposing yourself to loss is – and should remain – a personal decision.
Many people, particularly the wealthy (who can afford to self-insure) and the young (who choose to face the risk their out-of-pocket expenses will not exceed the amount they’d pay in premiums), d0 not want to purchase health insurance. Most people pay between $5,000 and $6,000 dollars a year for health insurance. The vast majority incur medical expenses amounting to only a fraction of that. To some, it is worth the risk to not insure…they should be allowed to accept that risk.
d) Employer Mandates.
During the debates, Senators McCain and Obama jousted over this. McCain said Obama would impose punitive mandates on employers. Obama, in a less than convincing manner, indicated he would not.
ObamaCare will require employers – including small businesses least able to a new fixed cost – to buy into insurance plans for their employees. Failure to participate will result in penalties…yet another tax. This will be an economic disaster for small business, already suffering through yet another hike in the minimum wage. And, just as with every time the minimum wage is raise, the choice for small business is simple; reduce your workforce (and, in this case, to a point below the threshold of ObamaCare) to avoid the additional expense.
More unemployment! Good job Mr. President.
Barring that – because some businesses must have a certain number of employees to remain profitable – they will have to pony up and either provide the insurance or pay the penalties. The cost of this can only come from a few places. Salaries, production of goods, provision of services, or profits.
Translated, ObamaCare results in lower pay, higher unemployment, fewer goods, degraded service, and reduced profits. Some employers may just decide to go out of business.
Health care in the US is covered by three main systems-- Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance. Two of these systems are bankrupt, and will be unable to make payments beyond 2017. The third is solvent, and can make all of its payments for the foreseeable future.
ObamaCare proposes to take the one system meeting its obligations and fold it into the two systems that are bankrupt.
Damn, I didn’t even get into the eventual “death panels” that will be required when the government suddenly realizes they can’t treat everyone…so, they’re going to have to ration care.
That’s where Dr. Zeke Emmanuel’s “Quality Adjusted Life” expectancy and John Holdren’s communist population control theories come into play. After all, they’ve got to cut costs somewhere…
Obama will say that’s fear-mongering.
Ask yourself this. What is Obama claiming will happen if his Health Care…er, Health Insurance…damnit, Health Care Reform plan isn’t passed?
It’ll be catastrophic, right? Well, that’s fear-mongering, too. Every political decision is driven by the fears of action or inaction…so, save the indignation.
Link?
you're a ing, fear-mongering, corporate-shill loser, pussyeater
To what? There's a lot of information in there... Google away, I stand behind it all.
First thing you've ever gotten right.
You didn't write it all, however.
Chumpy, you must have an alarm that goes off every time I post. Sweet.
Link?
You should see someone about that lingering case of Tourette's, b_d. It's really a drag how you treat this forum like it was a bathroom stall.
So there's no single payer system in any of the current bills.
No kidding. He/she must be really pleasant to be around.
Tonight's drinking game:
1 drink every time God says "Let me be clear"
Or, "the time for debate is over."
"We reject as false the choice between . . ."
*Furrowed brow*...*chin up*...*pause*..."Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd".. ."Let me be clear".
The public option is intended to eventually lead to a single payer system.
So there's no single payer system in any of the current bills.
How both you and I know this..The public option is intended to eventually lead to a single payer system.
1) Obama said so.
2) The progressives will not support a bill without a public option.
Thoughtful people consider the actual results of proposed legislation. What do you think will be the likely result of the public option?
Chump is trying to play this surface game as if it even entertains me or anyone else reading this thread.
Chump, c'mon brother
Give up on Chump...he's like a Whack-a-Mole.Chump is trying to play this surface game as if it even entertains me or anyone else reading this thread.
Chump, c'mon brother
I think Chump is a cool enough guy, in his own way, to not really care one way or another because he knows he will succeed in any system. I get that.
At the same time, I wonder if it annoys him there are young people out there that know enough of the fundamentals to not fall into the trap of Instant 20-something Progressive Movement Take-Politicians'-Words-at-face-value faux intellectual Big-Government-Supporting They-really-care-about-us mold.
I wasn't kidding about the bathroom stall thing.
Maybe this forum is like a closet where b_d can't vent his hostilities, so as not to inflict them on his (or her) loved ones. Maybe all the piss and vinegar makes b_d more pleasant to be around, for those who know him in meatspace. Kinda sucks for us tho.
You can use the ignore function...that way you only see his/her nonsense when someone quotes him/her.
you sound scared less
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
