The New York Times is running an OpEd by Pathological-Liar-In-Chief today entitled "Why We Need Heath Care Reform." Let's take at look at it, shall we?
Sentence number two: "And over the past few weeks, much of the media attention has been focused on the loudest voices." Now, who is he talking about? The loudest voices? Are those the voices of dissent? Of course they are! Has much of the media attention been focused on THEM, as he says, or on the town halls themselves and the legislators being held accountable? I'd say the latter.
In paragraph two he recounts the stories of some unfortunate folks who don't have insurance. In paragraph three he quotes the already proven inaccurate, and therefore intentionally deceptive, figure of 46 million people that are uninsured.
Right there, in paragraph three, he lied to me. So he's lost me right there. But, I'll forge ahead in the interest of investigation.
His next line? "There are four main ways the reform we’re proposing will provide more stability and security to every American." Another lie. What he's proposing will NOT provide more stability and security to ME. I'm going to be worried every single day about losing the coverage I already have. When I DO lose it, I'm going to be worried about finding another private carrier to cover me. When I can't, and I have to go to one of the government options, I'm going to be worried about rationing and inferior care. That's not what I call "more stability and security."
Next line in question: "...you will have a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage for yourself and your family." Since there are no plans written just yet, much less any policies, I'm not sure how he knows this. What tests will be covered under ObamaCare? Will abortion be covered? How can he possibly guarantee that the care will be "high-quality" when there is no plan? Many experts suggest that care will likely be inferior as rationing will have to occur in order to keep costs down. So this is another lie.
Then he says, "Second, reform will finally bring skyrocketing health care costs under control, which will mean real savings for families, businesses and our government. We’ll cut hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies that do nothing to improve care and everything to improve their profits."
Okay. A couple of points here. One, of course, goes back to the rationing arguement. How else can he "cut hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency" without it? He's going to have to cut Medicare and Medicaid to do that. He's going to have to ration tests. And he's going to be sure that the big, bad insurance companies don't "improve their profits." But not one single word about tort reform or trial lawyers improving THEIR profits. Nada.
His next tangent is on the big, bad insurance companies who don't cover pre-existing conditions or who charge higher premiums if they do actually cover you. That's the free market, capitalist system. Which is, of course, his target.
And, oh my, look at THIS whopper; I'll have to address this one in parts: "If you have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. You will not be waiting in any lines. This is not about putting the government in charge of your health insurance. I don’t believe anyone should be in charge of your health care decisions but you and your doctor — not government bureaucrats, not insurance companies."
One: In the House bill there is a section that specifically says that life sustaining treatment will be "guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association."
I'd suggest that statement indicates a very real possibility that this bill is "putting the government in charge" of my insurance. Or at least my care, and that's what people are worried about.
Two: He continues to say "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."
Intentionally misleading. You can't keep it when they pack their toys and go home because they can no longer compete with a government run plan. He knows this. He is for a single payer system. He said so. He's intentionally deceiving you here.
Three: "You will not be waiting in any lines." Really? I wait in the doctor's office for a long time sometimes now. He's going to do away with that? No, seriously, how can he know this? There is no plan. Is he trying to say there will be no rationing? If so, that's a lie. There MUST be to pay for this.
He begins to close his Op Ed with some finger shaking at the opposition: "We are bound to disagree, but let’s disagree over issues that are real, and not wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that anyone has actually proposed."
I shake my finger back at him. Yes, we disagree, but the thousands of people at these town halls across America DO believe these issues are real. It is not a "wild misrepresentation" to know that I will lose my current coverage or that care will be rationed. That the medications I need may not be covered under the government plan.
The end of life counseling is not a "wild misrepresentation" either. It's in the House bill, which is the only one I've read so far. And whether it's compulsory or not, which is still a matter of debate, it's no place for the government. Period.
Then he says, "Almost everyone knows that we must start holding insurance companies accountable..." but nothing about tort reform. Again.
He says, "The AARP supports this policy..." but didn't AARP say this week that they haven't endorsed any plan? Let's look at the whole context of that quote: "And we have an agreement from the drug companies to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. The AARP supports this policy, and agrees with us that reform must happen this year." Is he saying AARP just supports lower drug costs? But the way he links that with "reform must happen this year" talking about ObamaCare in general, he makes it sound like AARP supports ObamaCare. Deceptive. Sneaky. Misleading.
Oh my. Look at this one: "In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain. But for all the scare tactics out there, what’s truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing. If we maintain the status quo, we will continue to see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day."
Gotta love this. He warns against fear-mongering then he fear-mongers. I haven't seen that statistic that 14,000 Americans lose their insurance every day, but assuming it's true, it's nothing compared to the numbers that will lose their current coverage under his plan.
He criticized the insurance company profits five times in that Op Ed. He criticized insurance comapnies in general much more.
In the end, according to the polls, 54% of Americans currently favor doing nothing as opposed to enacting ObamaCare. I think that's lowballing, but it's still a majority.
Back up and regroup, Barry. Take a vacation.
Obama Sanders Doctors Once Again
Will Obamacare Cover Illegals?
"This Isn't About Me!"
Lack of Empathy?
Obama Now Worried About Saddling Our Children With Debt?
Obamacare Team Visits Reserve, LA.
"You WILL Lose Your Current Insurance"
Obamacare for Illegals
No More Private Insurance with Obamacare
Starting to Look at the Obamacare Bill
John Boehner Says the Republicans Have a Better Plan
"Say Hello to My Little Friend!"
Take a Look at Obamacare
Going Galt Over Obamacare
Congressman Fleming: What's Good for the Goose.
(More at Memeorandum)