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.
Related posts:
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)
Does this guy ever shut up? He is on TV every day, on the radio at least once a week, now he is writing some bilge. What next? Huge TV screens on every street corner with his image and latest screed?
ReplyDeleteDo I have to turn off every form of commucation to get away from his droning on?
You're just a right-wing nutcase. Healthcare reform is sorely needed, the proposals aren't perfect (single payer makes the most sense) but they are an improvement over the status quo. Why would you want to maintain a system where many people can't get insurance of any kind, can have their claims denied by greedy insurance company bureaucrats, are denied the right to choose their doctors or their hospitals?
ReplyDeleteI live in Canada. I can tell you that practically NO ONE here would trade our system for yours. The founder of our medicare program is a national hero. Even the most conservative members of the Conservative Party wouldn't never dream to dismantle the extremely popular government single-payer medicare program. If there are problems (such as waiting lists for certain procedures), the solution is MORE public investment, not less.
This is much better than having millions of people who are forced to declare bankruptcy because their insurance company refused to cover their hospital bills because of some legal technicality. This is better than having doctors waste their valuable time dealing with dozens of different rules mandated by insurance companies.
What worries me is that Obama's healthcare reforms don't go nearly far enough. By the time all is said and done, will the U.S. still be 37th on the list of the world's healthcare systems? Will it still cost more to deliver less care than other countries?
It's amazing to me (and to most Canadians) that the tame, tepid proposal for a public option is met with such virulent hysteria from the right. Trust me: Americans would be better off with a simple, cost-efficient, single-payer system. But of course, that would be "socialism", and we can't have that. People's health are not as important as greed and the profit motive.
Great summation, I linked you on this.......
ReplyDelete@ jasperjava
ReplyDeleteSince you are in Canada and demonstrate in your post that you know nothing about America you haven't picked up incidentally or on TV, it is amusing that you begin you comment with "You're just a right-wing nutcase." It should have began with "I will now demonstrate that I am know-nothing jackass."
Professing a belief that the Conservative Party of Canada is analagous to American conservatism just displays your remarkable ignorance.
While Canada exports emergency patients to the US, you have the gall to say no one there wants any change. Of course not-- since you've been sponging off the US medical system to a large degree (we all know about those numerous Canadian innovations in medical technologies that Canada floods the world with... right?) and think you're getting a bargain when you pay exorbitent taxes to fund your long-wait system. How long do you have to wait for CAT scan or to see a specialist? Care to enlighten us, oh noble light of the great North?
Oh no, but we're all nutcases because we don't agree with you...
Just because the people of your country chose to allow your government to run their lives and take away their money (what's your take-home after taxes?), don't expect the US to follow your example.
You don't understand the US? Who cares? You don't have to understand. But please, keep posting your asinine and uninformed opinions on American blogs. Make Canada proud!
I'm not suggesting that international readers shouldn't post, but don't post if you have no idea of what you're talking about. Have you read the bill, jackassjava?
« Professing a belief that the Conservative Party of Canada is analagous to American conservatism just displays your remarkable ignorance. »
ReplyDeleteNever said they were the same. Canadian conservatives don't scream about "socialism" when someone wants to improve the healthcare system. Serious Canadian conservatives don't put up with insane conspiracy thoeorists like "birthers". Someone like George W. B*sh or Sarah Palin would only have received low single-digit support in Canada, because Canadians generally like to have leaders who know a thing or two about the issues.
But please continue to make the word "conservatism" a laughingstock.
Jasperjava,
ReplyDeleteMay I be the first to say "Stay in Canada" because we freedom loving Americans don't need you here. We have our own pantie waist socialists to contend with.
(NOTE: All freedom loving Canadians, you're welcome any time.)
Evidently you don't understand the American spirit, especially the southern American spirit. The south broke away from our country 150 years ago and fought one of the bloodiest wars in this country's history for the sake of freedom from a powerful centralized government. Yes, the South lost that war, but the spirit is very much alive and well.
And as a favor, before you start telling us what to do in this country, take the time and read the 10th Amendment to our Constitution, or read the whole thing, then come back and show us where it is written that free health care is a right.
BTW! When was the last time a Canadian team won the Stanley Cup?
@ jasperjava
ReplyDeleteHere's an inconvenient quote for your assertion.
Via the AP: "The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.
Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.
'We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize,' Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press. [...]
[Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA] has been saying since his return that 'a health-care revolution has passed us by,' that it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared.'
In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system."
And a little later in the article: "'(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now - if it keeps on going without change - is not sustainable,' said Doig.
"'They have to look at the evidence that's being presented and will be presented at (the meeting) and realize what Canada's doctors are trying to tell you, that you can get better care than what you're getting and we all have to participate in the discussion around how do we do that and of course how do we pay for it.'"
Canada has had universal health care since about 1962 when Woodrow Lloyd introduced the law despite the objections of the Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons and a doctor's strike-- the excat line is a little fuzzy as Canada eased into socialized medicine. So 47 years later and the president of the Canadian Medical Association says the system is "imploding."
This is similar to the British NHS established in 1948. It started off strong being hailed as "the envy of Europe," floundered a few decades later, and now is a travesty. Canada is following the same path unless major changes are made-- which means private insurance and competition.
Price fixing (a requirement for "universal" health care) and centralized economies do not work in the long term as one can never control the actual value of a product or service. Collapse is the inevitable result, which has been demonstrated in various countries time and again. Even draconian control over the economy (such as Mao's China and the Great Leap Forward) resulted only in famine, instability and collapse.
Captain Ambiguous-speak strikes again. You have to listen to what he says. He throws around words like "hope" and "change" and "choice" as if they automatically mean something great. They are in and of themselves benign. One can have hope. Things change regardless. There is always a choice but it doesn't mean it's a true choice, just another option. He is trash. Deluded, self-absorbed over-inflated illegal immigrant trash.
ReplyDeleteI recall reading on another blog - I think it was Gateway Pundit, but I may be wrong - that the profit margins of the 3 largest insurance providers back in 2007 ranged from 3%-7%. They sure sound like greedy bastards to me (/sarc off)
ReplyDeleteFrance's plan is in $$$ trouble; Canada's doctors want to revamp entirely; Tory Party in England want to restructure NHS - those seem like strong indicators to NOT pursue single payer.
Since Obama's op-ed appeared in the NYT, the only people who read it were those who already agree with him. It won't convince the Independents, and it only provides more fodder for the opposition. Thank you, Dear Leader.