Five Biggest Lies --- brought to you by the GOP by Devilstower Share this on Twitter - Five Biggest Lies --- brought to you by the GOP Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 07:46:03 AM PDT Newsweek brings you the five biggest lies of the health care debate. These are whoppers so big that anyone should be embarrassed to be associated with them. But these lies didn't originate from some obscure quarter, and they're not being spread over the backyard fence. Here's a quick look at the Big Lies, and just a few examples of how the top names on the right are willing to bathe in bull**** if it helps their funders in the insurance industry. 1. You'll have no choice in what health benefits you receive. If you read the bill – Title I, Subtitle E, Sections 141-143, on pages 41-48 – it turns out that the Health Choices Commissioner’s job is, essentially, to make your health choices for you. ... The so-called "Health Choices Commissioner" will be the closest the United States has come to having an absolute ruler since King George III. -- Heritage Foundation 2. No chemo for older medicare patients. After he was diagnosed with brain cancer more than a year ago, Sen. Kennedy had excellent care, including surgery and chemotherapy, before he died last week. ... In the future, will a man of Kennedy's age, with brain cancer but without the means of offsetting his own healthcare costs, be kept alive, operated on, given chemotherapy -- by a government obsessed with cutting healthcare costs? Rationed care is coming, and the death panels will not be far behind. -- Pat Buchanan 3. Illegal immigrants will get free health insurance. The National Council of La Raza and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus pushed to include illegal immigrants in the president’s healthcare effort. Despite statements to the contrary, the Obama administration could force the American people to pay for the healthcare of millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S. -- Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) 4. Death panels will decide who lives. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil. --- Sarah Palin In Oregon, the law permits doctors to assist in the suicide of terminal patients who wish to end their lives. Let us assume numerous patients have Alzheimer's and, so, cannot be part of the decision to end their lives. Who then makes the decision to continue or end life? Would it be unfair to call the decision-makers in those cases a death panel? -- Pat Buchanan "I think that’s a legitimate point. You don’t have to call it death panels if you don’t want to. You can call it a panel. I call it rationing." -- Michael Steele 5. The government will set doctors' wages. First of all, what must be done, is to cancel the entirety of the current President's current policies ... for no lesser reason than that your sister might not end up in somebody's gas oven. -- Lyndon LaRouche What's that? This last statement is disconnected from the health care debate and really just the blathering of conspiracy crazed nutcase LaRouche? And how exactly do you tell the difference between that and the Republican leadership? It's no wonder that so many "conservatives" mistook the question of a LaRouche Obama-is-a-Nazi speaker at Barney Frank's town hall for one of their own. They're all ladling their ideas from the same cesspit. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/1/774703/-Five-Biggest-Liesbrought-to-you-by-the-GOP
The article would be better if it identified the particular points in the bill that are being used to spread the lies and the parts of the bill that counter those lies.
Typical twist on both sides. But if these are the 5 biggest lies, then it appears the GOP is doing a pretty good job. Point 1: Stay on topic. We are talking about public health care, not private health care. So lets rephrase the question: "If an individual can not afford private healthcare, does that individual have a choice in what health care benefits the receive from the government?" Points 2 & 4 are essentially the same: Lets focus on the original concern. We are dropping 50M or whatever extra uninsured people into the health care system. We already have waits in the ER and its not easy to get in with current practitioners quickly. How is the doctor shortage going to be addressed? Point 3: Don't be naive. Name one piece of major legislation that is not always being altered. If this passes with no illegal immigrant health clause, it will be changed in time to pander to the Hispanic population. Point 5: Once again, stay on topic. If a doctor chooses to accept public health care patients, he has no choice. Its the same with medicare.
Yes, they would. The system would provide a subsidy which could be used on private or public insurance. In either case, it would be more options than they have now, which is no insurance at all. Those people are already filling ERs - it's not like the uninsured don't go to the ER when they have emergencies. In fact, a lot of the ER overcrowding is exactly due to that problem - the ER has to treat them, so they go ther efor things that would be better served going to regular doctors. Except there's no real interest group in support of this. The Hispanic population has not made any sort of big push to get illegal immigrants insured. So if they make a choice, they have no choice? They can always choose to not accept the public plan patients. Beyond that, is this any worse/different than insurance companies "setting wages"? They also dictate what they will pay for a given procedure.
This is particularly stupid of you to say. As a general matter, any piece of existing legislation can be amended at any time, for any reason....to pander to any political consitituency....accordingly no legislation should ever pass, ever, according to this crap sandwich of logic you are constructing.
Some sort of rationing will occur. Rationing always exists when there are limited resources. And I still wonder without price controls how the government will cover everyone for less. Until something is passed, it is impossible to comment on what I like/dislike about it. Congress has not settled on one central idea yet.
Space Ghost: I am beginning to wonder why you continue to post about a topic you are obviously not familiar with.
lol. Liberals always are right on the issues, right? Therefore because America is pretty much against the whatever it is you're selling right now it must be because of GOP lies. It couldn't be that because no one knows exactly sure what you want (for various reasons) opponents can criticize the worst part of any govt. healthcare system and project it onto yours. Ah, your minds at work.
No. But in this forum at least, they seem much more interested focusing on facts and evidence than the more outspoken "conservative" posters. I'm just sayin'...
THis is a flawed argument. Under the current system someone who can't afford private health care already has no choice. The only option they have is to rely on the emergency room where the tab will already be picked up by the government and / or other patients.
Why do we need medicaid? Why allow people to use emergency rooms? Why not just let them die? Because health care is not a right, why even bother allow the pooor to have any healthcare at all? I am sure the many people in this country would be happy with that option. While we are at it, why not remove social security and medicare, I am sure that would make the conservatives extremely happy.
I like this article. Simon Johnson is not a liberal shill and the Washington Post is not the NYTimes (boo hiss). Can we afford healthcare reform? We can't afford not to do it. Someone else can feel free to post the entire article.
Once again, we are not talking about private insurance nor are we talking about why we need the health care. We are talking about the flaws on this subject once its passed. I will use my personal example as a self employeed individual who makes enough to get the bills paid. People like me make up a big portion of the uninsured. If this bill passes, I HAVE NO CHOICE! I am FORCED to get insurance or pay a penalty to remain uninsured. You might call that a choice, but i call that extortion. Subsidy or no subsidy, I will not be able to afford private insurance. If I choose to pay for public health care instead of paying the penalty for no insurance, I once again, do not have a choice on what type of insurance I get from the government. The ER's are not filled with people looking to get routine checkups or a case of the sniffles. I haven't been to the doctor in 5 years. When I had insurance through an employer, I went routinely. Once you give people a right to goto the doctor, they will go much much more frequently. So once this bill is passed, if an illegal goes to the doctor or the ER, he will be turned away? If so, how long do you really think that will last? If not, who is going to foot the bill? Once again, we are not talking about doctors who choose not to take public patients. Nobody is saying doctors are being forced to work for the state. If a doctor chooses to work for the state, then he has no choice on his payment. This is not really a huge issues, but I was pointing out that its a valid argument. You do have a point that any doctors that take insurance have no say in the pay. A concern is that if a private insurance refuses to pay for a procedure, that is kicked back to the individual. Under the public option, the doctor must foot the bill if the government refuses to pay for any reason given.
Not being insured is a big risk. If you found big lump on your left nut, I'm guessing your tune would change real fast.
That's fair, goddamit. If you bust you head open and go to the emergency room, we all pay for it, since you're uninsured. Your single, personal, data point is not proof to the contrary. I have good insurance, and I hardly ever go to the doctor. Wooooo. Good. It's called preventative care. Of course not, just like he is not turned away now. Illegal aliens, and the effect they may or may not have on the US, are really a totally different subject to compain about, Space Ghost. Not true. If insurance refuses to pay, the doctor pays the bill. I know this for certain, because I am still in the middle of an insurance feud between my insurance company and a surgical assistants company. Heck, the surgical company could not even appeal the insurance company's decision without my consent. The caveat to this would be elective surgeries, where you intentionally scheduled out-of-network, for example.
This is true. People like you currently are subsidized by the rest of us. Why should that be the case? Why? Why do you assume there won't be any basic private plans that are similarly priced to the public option? No, they aren't. They are filled with people who didn't get checkups and are now coming in with emergencies that could have been avoided with a routine checkup. Some will, some won't. I have insurance and I go maybe once a year at most. Illegal aliens will go just like they do now. The same people that foot the bill now will continue to foot the bill. How is the situation any worse? Why is it a valid argument? What exactly is bad about a doctor who chooses to work with the state having their wages determined by the state? Isn't that how every profession works? Wait - why would this be the case? If the public option doesn't cover it, it would be no different than the private option not covering it. The individual can pay or not have the procedure. Why would the doctor be forced to cover anything there?
