Open Thread: Politifact's 2010 'Lie of the Year'
"A government takeover of health care." Writes Politifact:
...as Republicans smelled serious opportunity in the midterm elections, they didn't let facts get in the way of a great punchline. And few in the press challenged their frequent assertion that under Obama, the government was going to take over the health care industry.
PolitiFact editors and reporters have chosen "government takeover of health care" as the 2010 Lie of the Year. Uttered by dozens of politicians and pundits, it played an important role in shaping public opinion about the health care plan and was a significant factor in the Democrats' shellacking in the November elections...
The phrase is simply not true.
Said Jonathan Oberlander, a professor of health policy at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill: "The label 'government takeover" has no basis in reality, but instead reflects a political dynamic where conservatives label any increase in government authority in health care as a 'takeover.' "
This is actually the second year in a row that Politifact, which is owned by the St. Petersburg Times, has dubbed an ObamaCare-related claim its Lie of the Year. In 2009, the honor went to Sarah Palin's "death panels" claim, even though that claim was not really a lie. And in fact, the specter of death panels resurfaced a day before Politifact gave its 2010 LOTY award.
But what of this year's award? Click through to Politifact for more on how they reached their decision. Do you think "government takeover of health care" deserves the title? Are there other lies that you would have chosen?
- NB Staff's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
I with the government and Im
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 10:49am.
I with the government and Im here to help you. LOL
Ya "We come in peace" "A
Submitted by Semus on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 10:53am.
Ya "We come in peace"
"A Republic if you can keep it"
Government takeover? Stalin called it "collectivization."
Submitted by lgeubank on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:01am.
When Stalin took over all the farms and village farmland in the U.S.S.R., it was called "collectivization." Collectivization took power (and land) away from the individual farmer or the village commune, and gave it to the monolithic central government. It's the same thing Obama's doing with medical care.
-------------- Other similarities: ------------------------------
Collectivization ruined Soviet agriculture. Farming in the USSR became a giant cluster-frick -- just as medical care will become here, under Obamacare.
It was done by scapegoating, by choosing a designated villain to blame. Stalin's was the kulaks (the wealthier peasants). Obama's was doctors, who are only in it for ther money, and insurance companies, likewise.
Pure BS
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:22am.
I wonder why doctors (or bankers, or oil execs, or whoever) don't speak out when Obama goes after them with these blatant falsehoods. I know of no one, not one single person, who had a doctor put them in surgery just for the cash. I have had a couple surgeries, recommended first by my primary care physician, who gave me a list of recommended surgeons, said list was presented to my insurance company, they okayed everyone, although some were outside my 'primary care' area and would cost me more, and I chose the surgeon and hospital. It was my choice. There is no way that surgeon knew I would go to my personal doctor that day and he would tell me to get a procedure. Obama's whole premise is ludicrious at best, a slur on a whole segment of professional doctors at worst.
Apparently there are other options
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:10am.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/stuxnet-apparently-as-effective-as-a-military-strike.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss
Timber! Look out below! Fore! Watch out.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:02pm.
troglodyt's straw man is about to fall! Get out of the way!
Who said there was only one option Little Boy Liar?
There she goes! The straw man falls down!
whining doesn't help.
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:40pm.
"Who said there was only one option Little Boy Liar?"
Nobody!? Or at least not me. Your straw man drowned pretty fast here. Go, play with somebody else.
Holy Warmed Over Crap. You are stupid.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:44pm.
My implication?
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:56pm.
Now you can read minds? Play with someone else. Perhaps you can read his/her mind. Though on second thought you should just play with yourself. Hopefully you know your own intentions. Move on.
BTW: It is not necessary to enumerate your sentences. Your arguments are so dull they don't need referencing markers.
Yeah Whatever Last Word Retard Troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:59pm.
It was me. I totally misunderstood your oh so brilliant logic in your subject line. Let me apologize to the community for my trollish wasy now.
I iz sorry everyone. troglodyt is teh Ludibrious yet oddly Malagrugrous See-Mart-T and I is all Jargogle.
Fergivings to me please.
You are forgiven.
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:04pm.
No hard feelings on my part.
Whatever Last Word Retard Troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:13pm.
I brabble so muches I coulda swore Straw Menses are knocked down, what with being made of straw, they is so easy to knock down and all but the Fake See-Mart-Lee German sez they drown now.
Whatevers. I Jullox.
Wow. My stupids knows no bounds.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 8:17am.
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
++++++
As I stated earlier. Little Boy Liar troglodyt is presenting a Straw Man Fallacy. No one is saying only a military strike can stop the Iran Nuclear program. The Little Boy Liar set up a straw man and knocked it over.
But yeah, whatever, I am the stupid one here, not the Little Boy Liar and his Straw Man Fallacies. That drown in rivers. Most people just knock them over seeing as how they are made of straw and are really really really really easy to push over.
You not stupid, right Little Boy Liar?
Instead of taking the easy route
Submitted by troglodyt on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 8:32am.
and critizising the plural, you have to post this elaborate reconstruction of what my argument supposedly was. Why is it that so often you get caught in the web you weave?
Well Dang. I musta dun it again. Man oh man my Stupidliness.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 9:54am.
Let's see. Now why would I have to elongate a reconstrictornation of what you wrote? Is it because you chose to reply with a See-Mart-Aleck-Lee post rather than state in clear terms EXACTLY what you were supposedly trying to say? Hmmmm.
++++++++
#7 whining doesn't help.Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:40am.
"Who said there was only one option Little Boy Liar?"
Nobody!? Or at least not me. Your straw man drowned pretty fast here. Go, play with somebody else.
++++++
Now if you suddenly feel the need to clarify what you were trying to say with your one sentence post contained only in the subject line, why go ahead. It is not like you missed 8 posts since then as an opportunity to do so.
You could give it a try. Posting an honest opinion in a forthright manner. But yeah, that would save a lot of time and posts on everyone's part. And I know, yes, yes, yes, poor little trollie. Honesty, forthrightness, clarity, all very very very difficult for you to do. We really do feel for you. Really, we do. It's hard. we know.
So go on. Tell us what you really meant and how it differed from my silly silly silly ebony requestrations.
Suggestion
Submitted by troglodyt on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 9:57am.
Next time just ask for clarification in the first place instead of extrapolating nonsense.
Another opportunity blown.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 10:12am.
Whatever nwahs. I hit the nail directly on the head or you would not try to spend the next 25 posts distracting JUST LIKE YOU ALWAYS DO.
You are another pisant little diaper wearing troll that fills his diaper and scratches at his sore diaper rash ridden nads because he got taken out to the woodshed and slapped around with his own stupidity.
You got problems with it, oh well, scratch on little trollie. Scratch on.
You got busted in a Straw Man Fallacy and now you cry, piss, moan, whine and fill your diapers. Cry me a river.
PS
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 9:52am.
Blurbee Blurbee Blurbee went the drowning straw man all the way home.
"unexpected
Submitted by T-Bone Mass on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:12am.
"unexpected decline"
"jobless recovery"
recovey summer (fall, winter, etc)
following that vein
Submitted by mom_rox on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:24am.
"saved jobs"
Guess this is the "talking points" lie of the week
Submitted by Red Jeep on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:12am.
The lie? The government never intended to take over health care.
Just yesterday Clay Waters had an article here "New York Times' David Leonhardt: Obama-Care on Same Level as Civil Rights," in which Leonhardt writes "Today, the supposed threat to free enterprise is a law that’s broader, if less radical, than Medicare: the bill Congress passed this year to create a system of privately run health insurance for everyone."
It's just gonna be private heallth care as usual, with a little government help, doncha kno?
...and I have this Bridge...for sale....
My vote for "Lie of the Year"...
Submitted by c5then on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:13am.
It is used over and over again and yet no one calls him on it.
"Let me be perfectly clear..." or the variation "let me be clear..."
What ALWAYS follows is an obfuscation of the facts at best and usually an outright lie.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Told you so
Submitted by KC Mulville on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:16am.
See? See? See what happens when you have "fact-checkers?"
The word "fact" is a telltale giveaway. It conjures up a notion of an absolute purity of objective knowledge that authorizes the fact-checker to pass judgments on others. It's a fraud.
In the first place, we have objective reality. Second, we have subjective human beings with beliefs about reality. And that mixture is a problem, because the subjectivity in all human beings makes it impossible to have anything like "objective knowledge." Knowledge can never be objective. It is nothing more than a belief that carries some justification, but no justification is absolute.
Then we have the special fiction of "facts." When people say that they have a fact, they're arguing that they have a belief that is guaranteed to be objectively true. (No. That's impossible.) They're saying that they have a belief that has been proved already (then why not prove it again?). When someone claims to have a fact, they're asking you to agree with their belief without the bother of proving it to you. All fact-checking is fraud. It's a claim to authority where none is possible.
And what's the danger? What's the harm in allowing these fact-salesmen to claim that they only tell the truth? The danger is that these frauds assert the right to tell the rest of us what to believe, and because some boneheads are intimidated by the word "fact," the boneheads think they don't have to worry or be skeptical. Fact-checkers are trying to sell themselves as objective guarantors of truth. They're just Rollo-decks salesmen (misspelling intentional).
Fact-checkers are total strangers who assure you that you can trust them. How dumb can you be to believe them?
Here's another "fact"....
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:46am.
Michelle Obama wears a thrift-store dress to the "Christmas in Washington" concert,
I guess Don Kaplan doesn't know the difference between a thrift store and a "vintage designer shop."
The difference, Don, is approximately $2495.
And the first lady has apparently lined up other "second-hand" dresses to wear later this year.
So nice to see that the first lady shops "thrift shops"....you know, just like the poor and homeless.
Here you go, mb
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:09pm.
A lovely little website that chronicles Moochelle's every fashion faux pas....in loving adoration and praise!
I know you'll be able to make good use of it as a reference....I can't take credit for finding it, someone else here posted it first, but I knew you'd find it useful as well.
The very first "story" has the thrift shop number. I have just one comment/question.
How much is the bloody heating bill in the White House? IIRC, last year it was reported Obama liked to keep it nice and toasty like a tropical desert. Obviously.....with the exception of granny, MO & the girls are wearing sleeveless!!! In my book, that's not stylish, it's inappropriate and estupido.
<edit> Check out Article #2....she's gone from Klingon Death Belts to a Starfleet Security Sash (Worf's Belt) in this photo. OMO!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
~Question
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:43pm.
As a woman who is the same height as Moochelle, I question this "vintage" dress. I can't wear a dress that isn't designed/fitted for me because I'm about 5 inches taller than average. (also because I'm overly gifted in the baby-feeder dept., but MO doesn't have that to worry about)
I've seen women's clothes from the 50's, and they weren't made for 6ft tall women, much less those of MO's girth. I'd say she's a size 14, easy. Where, I ask you, are you going to find a vintage size 14 gown made to fit a 6 ft tall woman? If this really is a vintage dress, I guarantee you it had a lot of new fabric added to it.
And a bargain at a mere $2,500
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:53pm.
I'd had that passing thought myself.
All I can think of is that it was made for some fat Hollywood mogul's wife.
I don't know what it is with MOO, whe loves to accentuate all of that junk, and the bodice of that dress was awful, gappy.
Didn't you find it adorable that the O's posed with all of those cute little kidlets as props? The sooner this clan of faux everythings get off the national stage, the happier I'll be.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
~Oh yes
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:17pm.
It was a steal, obviously. Nice to know she's cutting back. And nice to know that some rich guy had a fat Sasquatch for a wife in the fifties.
What's with all the white kids in that pic, anyway? How racist.
/snark off
Hmmm...
Submitted by HelenS on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 2:15pm.
Maybe the prize for lie of the decade or year or month or whatever should go to whomever started the rumor that MO had such an awesome fashion sense. Unless Trucker Chic (NO disrespect intended to truckers!) on muscular wenches is a trend I somehow missed...
Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years - the cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."
~Hey girl!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 4:48pm.
Long time, no see!
I think it's all part of the "soft bigotry of low expectations". Hahahahaha!
The standards for models, and
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 3:45pm.
The standards for models, and what was considered slim or shapely were quite different in the 50's.
I read somewhere that the average Miss America in the 90's was about 30 lbs. lighter than the winners of the 50's.
And that Marilyn Monroe would be considered positively tubby by today's standards.
So MO very well could fit into a dress from that era.
~The average woman
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 4:37pm.
in the 50's was 5'3" and 25-30 pounds lighter than a modern day woman of the same height. LINK
MO is 5'11" with a set of shoulders that would have done a football player in the 50's proud. I'm just saying that finding a designer dress of such formidable proportions from that era would be remarkable.
Ahh...the wonderous
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 4:49pm.
Ahh...the wonderous varities...tall, short, slim, round and every size between....I like em all!! :-)
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Thanks, B....that was
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 3:34pm.
Thanks, B....that was entertaining!!
Some of them were not too bad, but what is the deal with this sweater???
Good grief!
LOL, mb....as I said to Bru
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 3:44pm.
She's gone from the Klingon Death Belt to the Starfleet Security Officer's sash (think Lt. Worf).
Good grief, indeed! Plus, what's up with the matching dog? Does she think she's Paris Hilton or something (well....she IS as vapid as PH).
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Her build is similar to that
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 4:06pm.
Her build is similar to that of Bo's...
Poor Bo
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 4:46pm.
He's a Portugese Water Dog and they have him clipped up like a poodle. How embarassing.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I have a poodle I don't clip
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 4:52pm.
I have a poodle I don't clip like a poodle. If I did she'd never leave her crate out of embarrasment.
How embarassing?
Submitted by Rukus on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 6:15pm.
I'm more of the how appropriate. Kinda goes with the owners...
Thanks a lot, motherbelt
Submitted by KC Mulville on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:22pm.
I started a post about the philosophical impossibility of facts ... a very important topic that Willard Quine made into a career-making paper called "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," which became one of the highlights of twentieth-century philosophy ...
... but instead, because of you, a fashion thread broke out in the NewsBusters Women's Club.
You just plain hijacked my philosophy thread! You Jesse James'ed it. Butch and Sundanced it. Oh well. Were you just trying to save me the embarrassment of having yet another boring thread about philosophy?
KC...You ignored a significant philosophical implication...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 12:07am.
For example:
I was just thinking about Willard Quine, Marilyn Monroe and The Dichotomy of Desire.
I've reached a conclusion. Next topic.
Jer
All the news that's frit to pint...
Submitted by j_phred on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:17am.
The SPT claims to be "Florida's Best Newspaper". I used to have a subscription to it but cancelled it years ago. I now buy only the Sunday edition, pull the coupons and throw the rest away.
I will occasionally read Robyn E. Blumner's column just for laughs though. It confirms my theory that 99% of liberals were oxygen deprived during birth.
I'd buy the SPT
Submitted by phryingphish on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:05pm.
I'd buy the SPT, except I don't own a Parrot and I don't believe in paper training my dogs.
The biggest lie of the year,
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:24am.
The biggest lie of the year, in my view would be;
Nancy Pelosi: "We have to pass the bill before we can see what is in it."
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Not a lie
Submitted by owr084 on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:33am.
Unfortunately, nancy was speaking the truth when she said that. No one really knew what was in the bill.
I was more amazed that nancy was not struck down by a bolt of lightning or burst into flames for speaking the truth...
dumb thing to say
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:35am.
I would put that as more of a really stupid thing to say, but you're right, it is a lie because we don't HAVE to pass it.
F'in Kerry repeated something similar about the 1900+ page spending bill, the one that got pulled by Reid. He said "why would we have to read the bill?"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/12/16/john_kerry_complains_a...
Ugh!
-Jon
95% of Americans got Tax Cuts
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:25am.
The Chairman still pushes that lie that 95% of Americans got Tax Cuts. If it's not him, it's the dem talking heads when discussing tax cuts on the shows.
-Jon
According to the Tax Policy
Submitted by yutsnark on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 4:20pm.
According to the Tax Policy Center, 94.8 percent of American workers got tax cuts. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/oct/20/your-taxing-questions-answered/
Last night, leftist political
Submitted by TE on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:27am.
Last night, leftist political activist Terry Moron and the other uber, ultra, hard and far left, hardline, virulent, militant, leftist fundamentalist extremist political activists at Nightline hyped and regurgitated this so-called "lie" of the so-called "year". You gotta love how the leftist political activists at Nightline hype the comical allegations of a leftist political advocacy group comically calling itself "Politifact" who used a leftist political activist named Jonathan Oberlander as "evidence" that the "government takeover" claim was a "lie".
Proof of Government Control of Health Care
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:30am.
The US District Court for Eastern Virginia has ruled that the Federal law's penalty for citizens opting not to buy health insurance exceeds Constitutional authority.
In other words, the Federal government manages the health care system for individuals whether they choose to participate or not.
That sounds like a government takeover to me.
Actually, the Virginia ruling
Submitted by yutsnark on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:37am.
Actually, the Virginia ruling doesn't state or imply that the government has taken over health care. On the contrary, it refers to a provision that requires people to obtain insurance from private companies. If there were a government takeover, there would be no private insurers.
If there were a government
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:54am.
If there were a government takeover, there would be no private insurers.Which there won't be, if the government has its way.
To be fair, they probably should have said incremental government takeover.
By saddling private insurers with requirements they can't afford, more coverages will be cut and companies will go out of business, leaving the government as the sole survivor.
I have been saying this ever since they passed a law allowing patients to sue HMO's. I saw this as an attempt to force private insurers into bankruptcy. Then the government would say well, we have to step into the breach.
The bill is a windfall for
Submitted by yutsnark on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 4:10pm.
The bill is a windfall for private insurers.
How?
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 5:17pm.
When they are forced to compete with subsidized Gov programs. Also, who gets to pick and choose? This is bad news for liberty, plane and simple
How
Submitted by yutsnark on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 7:07pm.
1. Lots of new customers for the insurance companies.
2. What subsidized Gov programs?
Was #2 a troll joke?
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 8:10pm.
This is just a start.
http://funding-programs.idilogic.aidpage.com/
troll joke
Submitted by yutsnark on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 8:40pm.
Number two was a response to the suggestion that government funded programs will compete with the health insurance programs. Such a program was proposed early on ("The public option"), but was not contained in the bill that was passed.
Thanks for the link, though. It looks like the list can be useful in other contexts.
Read the list again*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 8:55pm.
This list contains health care programs already subsidized by the Federal Govt for people without ins cov voluntarily or for those without due to income. They are already "public option" available in every state. They go under various names but all govt supported.
MNP, COBRA, WIC, CHIPS, FAMILY PLANNING
The intention of the AHCA was to consolidate payment and regulations to the federal govt and do away with the STATES as go-between. Unfortunately, the "public option" takes away states rights and forces people who have private insurance to pay a penalty or tax to cover the costs of the "public option". Both of those decrees in the AHCA have been deemed unconstitutional by the states and currently being argued in courts for other violations of the commerce clause.
The list itself alone cannot be understood until you grasp the full concepts behind the AHCA.
cajun2
Submitted by yutsnark on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 11:08pm.
I was responding to a comment, which I believe came from Boudin. The gist of it was that the health care reform law is, in effect, a government takeover. The reason given was that government-sponsored health insurance will drive the private insurers out of business.
I thank you for selecting relevant examples from your previously lengthy list. Unfortunately, I don't know what MNP is. I assume CHIPS refers to SCHIP. I suppose that program does compete with private insurers, but it focuses on people who probably can't afford private insurance anyway. The others, to the best of my knowledge, don't offer health insurance -- but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
In any case, all those programs have been around for a long time, and the private insurers have survived nicely in spite of them.
I also don't understand your concern about the "public option," since it doesn't exist in the bill that was passed.
Yutsnark*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 11:52pm.
MNP is medically needy program. This is for "crisis, short term medicaid coverage" for people without ins. voluntarily or due to lack of income and jobs. It is to cover a short term serious illness or accident. This program generally covers the unemployed and illegal immigrants.
Every state has a multitude of acronyms for govt paid medical programs. The states "manage" these programs with Federal Funding. IE, medical coverage and special voucher programs for pregnant women and infants near the poverty level who do not qualify for medicaid or food stamps. These programs are for "low income wage earners".
The "public option" is a deceptive term. Employers will continue to provide medical coverage only until the taxes and penalties rise in the next 3 yrs following regulations in the bill. The regulations in the bill essentially consolidates all of the multiple medical programs thru one govt. controlled program administered in local areas by Health Care Commissions.. This will cause a huge increase in the number of people covered under govt sponsored medical programs. Individuals and employers who have or providing employee coverage will pay an increase in taxes and penalties. Employers will necessarily have to "opt" out of private coverage due to those penalties. With fewer particpants in private plans, Ins Co will have to increase the monthly premiums resulting in more people enrolling in the govt plan. Dominos.
Once the program goes into effect, federally matching funds to state run programs will dwindle as enrollment in the govt. sponsored programs increase over a period of time. It may take 4-5 yrs or more but will eventually "break" private insurers and employers will not be able to afford employee coverage. State, Federal employees and many Union employees are the only ones,so far, exempt from these regulatory changes, Ins Cos will not be able to continue coverage Just for govt employees. If you study private insurance companies, their profit margin is very near grocery stores...3-5%..not very profitable. Threaten that % of profit, ergo, the dominos.
You have to have knowledge of several issues to understand. The financial relationship between state and federal mandated and regulated programs. Then you must understand the HUGE bueaurocracy that will be implemented and necessay to manage all of these changes. Interesting the the IRS will be first in hiring 66,000 new employees. There will be 100 new agencies and 26K health care commissions. They are well aware and are prepared for the massive enrollment in govt sponsored health care. And recall from my previous post, being familiar with bureaucrats, their goal is always to multiply. This is already in the planning. There are other little nasties in the bill giving these health care commissions great power over individual medical decisions. Call it rationing, call them death panels but they will eventually be necessary and have the regulations in place. After a period of years, guess, this country will have nationalized health care like other socialized countries already. This one will be incremental and eventually will look like the UK program.
Read the bill, not the hype.The goal of this bill is to "nationalize" health care and include a serious blow to a free market comsumer product.
Thanks Cajun2
Submitted by yutsnark on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 12:43am.
I appreciate the explanation. Do the current provisions allow the federal government to actually provide insurance for everyone, or would that require additional legislation?
What new customers?---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 8:48pm.
From where?
The currently uninsured who are young, 26 plus, out on their own, and don't have health coverage, by choice, because they believe themselves bullet-proof and forever young?
Or are you referring to the entire welfare class, who never had health insurance in the first place, as they opt out of working, by choice, and so live on the handout system - their hands out and the nanny state handing out all the goodies?
What, exactly, would you call a program of health coverage for welfare weenies and queenies that will be paid for through taxes levied on people who are gainfully employed.
Rather than call it what it is, a healthcare program subsidized by the federal government with taxpayer money, or, ADDITIONAL WELFARE; what do you think about maybe calling it the "HealthCare Horn of Plenty"?
How about the" Great Giveaway", or, the "Grandest Government Goody Giveout Going"?
The whole point behind ObamaCare, despite what has been said about "coverage for all", and despite the obvious need for healthcare "reform" , is Obama's idea to "spread" the wealth.
Period.
MD
Right. The bullet-proof
Submitted by yutsnark on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 10:41pm.
Right. The bullet-proof young people, the people on welfare, and anybody else who doesn't presently have health insurance. They all will have to purchase private insurance. Hence, the windfall referred to above.
You miss the most significant point---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 11:24pm.
in that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to order citizens to buy something.
There will be no "windfall".
MD
You may be right, MD
Submitted by yutsnark on Sat, 12/18/2010 - 11:37pm.
The question is expected to (eventually) be decided by the Supreme Court. I agree that the mandatory coverage clause is likely to be found unconstitutional. That would force private insurers to either raise their premiums steeply, or go out of business. To deal with the ensuing crisis, congress would likely repeal all or most of health care reform and start from scratch. Still no government takeover, though.
Whatever Dead Zippers style troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:13pm.
If there were a government takeover, there would be no private insurers.
If the provision that requires people to obtain insurance from private companies is shot down and the rest of ObamaCare stays, and there is no penalty for not having insurance while insurance companies must accept people with pre-existing conditions. Then everyone will wait until they contract a major disease before getting insurance.
In that case, yes, there would be no private insurers. They would all be bankrupted within years. Otherwise, you are just an idiot as usual. Carry on with the new troll way -
Two (2) Spaces Guy Here
Submitted by BuffNBone on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 3:49pm.
Please go easy on the crowd that uses two spaces after a period, question mark, exclamation point, or interrobang. When learning to touch type using one of those keyboards whose keys were blank, the space bar was my friend. And it still is.
another thing Buff*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 4:33pm.
Some of us poor typists wear bi-focals.
2 spaces
Submitted by yutsnark on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 4:34pm.
That's the way I learned to type too. It makes your message easier to read.
It is not that hanging out there by itself.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 10:29pm.
It is the combination of all of them such that you cannot tell them apart.. You sir filled out the subject line. And you met the conditions of none of the rest. I am not saying 2 spaces are bad. I am saying most of these trolls do that AND not fill out the subject line AND make antithetical annoying posts AND ...
Tech question for the savvy ones here....
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:49am.
One of my main complaints about NB has been that, when clicking on "X new comments" the page opens to the headline of the article rather than the first new comment as in the past.
However, I was recently at my son's, who also uses FF, and when I clicked on the "X new comments" button, I WAS taken to the first new comment in the thread.
Does anyone have a theory about this?
What is Politifact?
Submitted by griv on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 11:50am.
Sounds like a fancy word for when you get a case of the "runs".
Check out the nut job leftist
Submitted by TE on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:06pm.
Check out the nut job leftist totalitarian Jonathan Oberlander, who was the "evidence" used by the self-described, so-called "Politifact" to "establish" that stating the obvious (i.e., that Obamacare is a government takeover) is not just a "lie" but "the lie of the year". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE5na2by4vc
I stand by my post
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:08pm.
The health care law requires that each individual obtain a health insurance policy/plan that meets Federal standards, and those who prefer not to have health care insurance must pay a fine. It's analogous to me dictating that you must live in my house; you can choose the room you want, but you must either live in the house, and if you don't want to live in it, well, you have to pay rent anyway.
Insurance companies will no longer have an option in setting premium rates. Traditionally, for example. women have paid higher rates because they use medical services more. The new law dictates what the companies can charge, and they cannot discriminate between genders. The term they avoid using is price control, but that's what it comes down to.
The Federal government is also setting up a national health records data base to be run by them. While this has some positive aspects, the governments track record on personal records privacy is abyssmal -- I've been notified at least twice by the Veterans Administration that my Social Security number has been compromised, and I haven't even used a VA service since 1983. SInce all physicians will have access to the system, your medical records will no longer be private -- whether you want that or not.
You can call it whatever you like, but I call it a takeover. The President himself said in 2006 that if we could start from scratch, he go to a single payer system. That tells us where is ultimately heading.
The ruling by the District Court recognizes that application of the Commerce Clause when it comes to regulating the health insurance industry. But it drew the line at applying it to those who don't want to participate in the commerce.
You needed the 100+ new agencies to regulate Healthcare
Submitted by TheHistorian on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:08pm.
You needed the new agencies but don't think that this type of hyper-regulation, not present that I can find on any industry outside of banking and investment, amounts to a takeover? Politifact should pull its head out of where it is stuck and try to read the health care bill. It has been passed, so even Queen Nancy shouldn't object if they read it.
Dennis Prager
Agree with you guys*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 1:48pm.
Of course the government is taking over health care. The distortion here implies a "takeover" is an immediate action. In the new AHCA, the take over will be incremental. Medicaid and Medicare funds have already been "robbed" and resulting in cuts to providers and increases in premiums to members. As a result, many insurance carriers and providers are already making adjustments for these cuts as well as the changes coming effective 1-1-14. I have already been notified by my HC provider, that insurance premiums will "necessarily skyrocket".
The government has admitted that they have already begun "rationing" of some health care programs to certain individuals. The 100+ new agencies and 26K HC commissions are going to increase exponentially (to borrow a term from a friend) due to a steady increase in the number of people who will lose private coverage due to cost and will need "govt health care".
Having worked with bureaucrats before, expect the 26K commissions to increase rapidly. These health care commissions will exist in order to enroll, track, and ration health care to those who cannot afford ever increasing private insurance. Bureaucrats are like any other critter on the planet. Their main goal is to continue to exist. In order to do that, they must reproduce rapidly. There is no way that these HC commissions can be chaired by trained medical personnel. So they will be chaired by bureaucrats. The HC bill allows for regulatory agencies to begin establishing standards and guidelines to determine eligibilty for AHC and medical services and treatment. One of the guidelines will be "assessing potential productivity" as a measure of eligibility. The details in this arrangement fly right over most people's heads. But giving this authortiy of life and death decisions to some damn bureaucrat is terryfying from the current group of lefties in charge. But consider the power being given to furture far left radicals for life and death decisons over its citizens.
I have already received a letter from my insurance carrier notifying changes being made in anticipation of implimentation of AHCA. These early regulations going into effect even before full implementation is already costing carriers and medical providers. Matching state funds for medicaid and medicare have already been slashed and will continue with incremental cuts over the next 4 yrs. The "trickle down" affect has already started. After 4 yrs of increasing costs for private health coverage, fines and penalties being enacted, higher numbers of people requiring affordable health care coverage, there is no rational method of looking at this program except as a massive government take over of health care. It will be done with incremental steps, small repeated cuts, increasing rules and regulations signifying change not with a BANG but with a whimper.
How about the Obama
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:26pm.
How about the Obama administration in it's entirety as the biggest lie of all time?
Then there was the time the Ass Clown lied about doctors ( what a dolt ) should have said surgeons remove feet, even when unwarranted, simply for the cash.
I'm still waiting for the racist Holder un-Justice Department to go after these greedy bastards.
Then there was the promise of ( included in the erroneous healthcare bill cost ) swift justice concerning all the waste & fraud in medicare, medicaid they say uncovered already. Lies or criminal conduct for not acting.
Barack_Must_Go.....
U.K. Red Cross fears offending camel-washers - bans Christmas
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:38pm.
How stupid is this?
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Robert Reich lying about death panels -- oh ! He wasn't you say.
Submitted by Gary Hall on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:39pm.
Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich explaining in 2007, in a lecture to UC Berkeley students how death panels would work:
We're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die.
For some reason the audience applauded those, and other the like remarks, the one student hooting an hollering - go figure; a future Democrat leader, no doubt.
Reich also went on to explain how, because of future health care reform (seen any of that around lately?) the students may not live much longer than their parents and, that it would cost them more in the future. Still applause and that same hooter in the back of the room - weird.
You can watch the lecture here - click on the Wed 9/26 Reich event . (around the 9 minute mark +/-)
There's a lot more of interest in the tape for a slow Fri (not me, mind you). For example, you can hear Reich explain how he dated Hillary before Bill Clinton dated her, and that he then introduced them. See, we have much more to blame Robert Reich for, than we realized.
(;~> gary
If it isn't a government
Submitted by Hunter12 on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:42pm.
If it isn't a government takeover,why do we need this.* Nancy, we can see what's in it now. Oh, and by the way PolitiFacts, does this sound like free choice between doctor and patient to you. The stimulus bill has also created a new entity of the federal government, the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. What are their duties?
"The mission of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research will be to decide on best practices and most cost effective practices. The council will recommend cost effective treatments for diseases to the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (NCFHIT). The NCFHIT will determine treatment at the time and place of care. It is charged with deciding the course of treatment for the diagnosis given by the doctor."
Anyone comforted to know that Rahm's brother, Ezekiel J. Emanuel, is a member of the council?
"Here’s what Dr. Emanuel told news reporter Jon Ward: “When I began working in the health policy area about 20 years ago … I thought we would definitely have to ration care, that there was a need to make a decision and deny people care.” And: “I think that over the last five to seven years … I’ve come to the conclusion that in our system we are spending way more money than we need to, a lot of it on unnecessary care. If we got rid of that care we would have absolutely no reason to even consider rationing except in a few cases.”"
* [You have to go into the press packet here to get a PDF you can actually read.]
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Interesting to note*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 2:07pm.
Many of the new health care "rationing" plan as well as more taxpayer funded abortion all seem to affect women first. Where is NOW when you need them?
A contender for the Big Lie...
Submitted by HelenS on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 2:11pm.
"Unemployment is at 9.6%"
Seems to be a low estimate. The reality is more like 14-17% if you count everyone actually unemployed and who want to work. Not just those on unemployment benefits.
Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years - the cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."
What part of Gov subsidized HC
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 4:43pm.
Do these morons not get? Who cares if everyone is covered, when none of it is any good?
~Shovel-ready job created--Breaking News!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 6:03pm.
ROFL
Repeat from another thread
Submitted by Rukus on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 7:46pm.
And what goes great with Christmas?
Why kids of course!
And pets are pretty good, too!
Merry Christmas all! Even all you trolls! : )
Vive le difference...
Submitted by TheDeuce on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 7:52pm.
Vive le difference...
Give a liberal man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Oh, and you also get called an "a-hole" for not giving him another fish every single day for the rest of his life.
It seems that the Duke
Submitted by ricklail on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 9:19pm.
It seems that the Duke lacrosse accuser has skated again. It is no wonder that Durham is one of the highest crime city in NC went the juries let people like this off.