As President Obama tours the country advancing his universal healthcare initiative, there are some dirty little secrets that he and his minions in the media don't want Americans to know.
On Sunday, George Will during the panel discussion on ABC's "This Week," exposed some inconvenient truths about this controverial subject that would likely change much of the public's view if they were regularly made aware of them.
After host George Stephanopoulos opened the roundtable segment, Will marvelously cut to the chase (video available here):
GEORGE WILL, ABC NEWS ANALYST: [T] this is now a single issue argument about whether or not we’re on a slippery slope to a single-payer system. That is, it’s about the so-called public option. And the president has said, “If you are starting from scratch” -- he said this very recently -- he would go to a single payer. That is, government as the single provider of health care.
Now, there are four arguments for the public option. One is, in the president’s words, it will keep them honest. To try to preserve the government as a lagoon of honesty, you can argue, refuted by anybody who reads any budget of any administration.
Bullseye, for all one need do is look at the totally absurd economic assumptions in Obama's 2010 budget, and one would have to agree with Will. But I digress:
WILL: Second, he says, it will play by the same rules as the private insurers, and therefore, won’t drive them out of business. If you play by the same rules, as you said to the secretary, what’s the point?
Exactly. If the rules of the private insurers are sound enough to be adopted by government, why change things?
WILL: Third, it’s necessary to give what Secretary Sebelius said a choice to the consumers. There are 1,300 entities offering healthcare plans in this country. Another one isn’t going to change that.
Precisely. Taking this a step further, many of these 1,300 entities will likely cease to exist if government gets involved. As such, Americans will have far fewer options.
WILL: Finally, there’s the argument that the American people are not smart enough to handle something as complicated as healthcare and have a competitive market. They’ve done rather well in computers.
Yes, but a common liberal meme is that people aren't smart enough to figure things out, and that's why government needs do it for them.
Fortunately, Will wasn't done, for he later dispelled another media myth about this issue:
WILL: Donna [Brazile], you talk about the 46, 47 million uninsured. Fourteen million of them are already eligible for other government programs and haven’t signed up. Ten million are in households with household incomes of $75,000 a year and could afford it if they wanted to.
Furthermore, an enormous number in that 47 million are not American citizens. Sixty percent of the uninsured in San Francisco are not citizens.
Bingo. So, this 47 million uninsured number the media always throw around is totally disingenuous and largely irrelevant.
That said, it was awfully nice hearing somebody say it this morning.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
An inconvenient assault of logic on liberal assumptions
June 14, 2009 - 16:20 ET by KC MulvilleLeave it to George.
A quick story to add my perspective ... I'm a computer programmer these days. Frequently I'm asked to "take over" an application that someone else has written. I would always find some questionable routines in the code which didn't obey my expectations. When I was new to the game, I jumped to the conclusion that the previous guy was stupid, and that thank God I came along to set things aright.
Healthcare is the ultimate "thank God I came along" problem. Each new group comes along, thinking they have a superior solution. Obama has (predictably) added the straw man that until he came along, his predecessors postponed the problem because it was too difficult for them. Obama is claiming bravery that he's taking on the problem, because we can't afford to avoid it anymore.
Healthcare isn't a problem of cleverness. It's a choice of values. It's a classic political problem, because it involves competing interests that are all perfectly legitimate. There isn't a clear villain nor a clear hero in all this.
What I would hate to see is Obama take his usual "Get it done, I command thee" nonsense. He does that all the time, so he can look like he's doing something, but he never gets his uniform dirty. If he doesn't want to be part of the political haggling, stay off the field and keep his mouth shut.
Re: an inconvenient assault
June 14, 2009 - 16:43 ET by slickwillie2001Good story. Been there too. The difference of course is that government will never admit that the previous guy had a good solution; liberal legislation is a one-way street. I fear that in four years when we throw the bum out, we may not be able to reverse all the damage. You just can't reassemble a private insurance industry of many hundreds of providers overnight, just for starters.
It's good to see Will coming around; for years I had put him in the box with Noonan and Brooks.
Re the numbers, this report on the numbers of 'uninsured' is one of the better ones I've seen: How Many Uninsured People Need Additional Help from Taxpayers: http://keithhennessey.com
I do think though that his number for illegals at 9.3m is low.
reversing the damage...
June 15, 2009 - 07:03 ET by AJBWe're still reeling from the Great Socialist, FDR, and his policies from the 30's and 40's. We'll be paying for some of those for a long time, and the liberals want to just keep building on them until we collapse under a mountain of 'free' gub'ment programs. Every single item on the socialist candidate's platform in 1932 is today in place in the US. Stupid people don't understand the difference between a 'right' and a commodity which must be rationed by some means.
On healthcare reform, Obama lied again...
June 14, 2009 - 16:33 ET by Gary HallOn healthcare reform, Obama lied again...
Obama said on June 11th, "Great Britain has a system of socialized medicine. I don't know anybody in Washington who is proposing that."
Really?
June 11th.. 'Conyers Resurrects $2.5 Trillion Govt-Run Healthcare Bill in House'
"Conyers’ bill, H.R. 676, The United States Health Care Act, would establish a publicly funded, government-administered healthcare system similar to those established in Canada and Great Britain. Known as a “single payer” system, Conyers’ plan would transform Medicare from a government program reserved for retirees to one that would replace private health insurance companies with a new government program."
Conyers's has plenty of support out there amongst Obama's constituency. Are they all "nobody?' Stop lying to us President Obama - you know plenty of people who are pushing socialized medicine.
oh goody
June 15, 2009 - 07:15 ET by AJBLong lines, eight months for critical care. But, unlike Canada and England, there will be no place for US residents to go to get affordable, fast and reliable health care once we convert to the dark side. Wasn't it Hillary's Canadian friend, diagnosed with breast cancer in Canada who was told to wait almost a year for treatment up there who came here and got treated THE NEXT DAY?
HMMMM
June 14, 2009 - 16:46 ET by rick007He says you will have a choice. Bull Shit. That choice will only be for a limited time. As soon as he gets his foot in the door Katy Bar thr Door.
As someone who works in the healthcare field
June 14, 2009 - 16:46 ET by Kat Outta the BagAs someone who works in the healthcare field, I just wish they'd come out and say exactly what they do plan to do because I'm getting tired of waiting and wondering if I'm still going to have my job a year from now (I work in medical billing).
Kat: As usual, the fact
June 14, 2009 - 16:50 ET by QueenMumKat: As usual, the fact that likely millions would lose their jobs is not something being talked about.
"All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats." - Groucho Marx
Re jobs
June 14, 2009 - 17:07 ET by slickwillie2001Note also that part of the impetus behind the takeover of health care is that those millions that would lose jobs would be replaced by probably a larger number and they would all be civil servant unfireable dues-paying members of a government union. That means more money flowing into fatcat union coffers and political contributions to democratics. This aspect of the takeover will never be admitted by the democratics.
If you like the NEA, you're going to love government health care.
I enjoyed everything Will
June 14, 2009 - 17:01 ET by bigtimerI enjoyed everything Will had to say, and I agree with him... but the biggest kicker for me was this...
WILL: Donna [Brazile], you talk about the 46, 47 million uninsured.
Fourteen million of them are already eligible for other government
programs and haven’t signed up. Ten million are in households
with household incomes of $75,000 a year and could afford it if they
wanted to.
Furthermore, an enormous number in that 47
million are not American citizens. Sixty percent of the uninsured in
San Francisco are not citizens.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Not only that, but they
June 14, 2009 - 17:36 ET by motherbeltNot only that, but they don't talk about the "unintended consequences"....namely that when a public option is available, how many employers will scale back their programs drastically, if not for the employee, but for the employees' families?
It's happened already with SCHIP. People (some of them in that $75,000 group that Will talked about) don't bother paying for health insurance through work, but just sign their kids up for SCHIP (the current upper boundary is around $84,000). How many employers will offer additional money instead of health insurance, thus dumping private payers out on the public plan?
And there is NO WAY a public plan is EVER going to save money; not without rationing. The President already talked about the obesity connection with diabetes and other health issues. Does anyone think that won't be considered when paying for procedures is under consideration? And does anyone doubt that same view will sooner or later be applied to other things? (high cholesterol for example).
One congressman I forget who already said older people are going to have to "accept" some things....at what age will they start cutting off services?
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Let us not forget
June 14, 2009 - 18:48 ET by FastEdthat there will be the additional costs of the new "employees" who will be "working" for the governement, NOT for the un-healthy. More money, less service, the governement way! (thanks Barry!)
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
I would have loved to see
June 15, 2009 - 09:41 ET by kgI would have loved to see Stephanopoulos' jaw hit the floor.
"DumbAssity of Dope"
More of the Same
June 14, 2009 - 17:07 ET by evilcontractorHealth Care is a great example of how liberals think. The only reason socialized medicine has not worked well in Canada, Great Britian and other countries is because the people running it are not as smart as the liberals here are. Also note that a single payer system is great for the masses, but of course, it will not apply to them. They're special and must receive special treatment (that means they get treatment) in order to continue to "lead" the gov't because no one else is as smart as they are. Just remember, these are the same smart, caring people that complain on the House and Senate floors that their poor mothers have to choose between buying medicine or food.
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. Sir Winston Churchill
www.btreasures.com
George Will . . . Now let
June 14, 2009 - 17:15 ET by jdhawkGeorge Will . . . Now let me see . . . No, I don't recall a Senator Will? Could he be Congressman Will? I know, he must be Governor Will? No, on all three counts.
But, all of you already knew that. So, what am I complaining about now?
WHERE ARE THE REPUBLICANS ON THIS ISSUE??????
Silence . . .
Zzzzzzz . . .
What was I thinking. This is the bunch that expanded government over the last so-called conservative's terms of 8 years by 100%, including a drug entitlement that is already costing the U.S. taxpayer twice as much as was projected when it was given birth by President Bush and the majority Republicans.
Meanwhile, we have 41 TRILLION dollars in unfunded medicare/medicaid and social security mandates. That's 41,000,000,000,000 dollars and a program that is going bust in about 8 years from now. That is it will no longer pay for itself with existing payroll taxes.
41 Trillion dollars . . . finally a figure that is even more than the current president's budget.
Wake up America. If you can't afford it in your personal budgets, how long do you think our government can afford it when it is over budget by trillions and trillions of dollars. We are in hock to the tune of 12% of the current budget. That is 12% of the this year's budget will be just to pay the interest on the debt. That's all it will do.
This is insane.
Republicans are
June 14, 2009 - 17:43 ET by motherbeltRepublicans are running around with their skirts up over their heads.
They are terrified to say anything, because they know the next line of attack is going to be Republicans don't want people to have affordable health insurance...or health care. (Affordable to whom? is the question!)
President Bush caved and got the prescription drug plan passed; did he or any Republican get a shred of credit for it?
Republicans know it's a lose-lose for them; Democrats can pass it without them, and they know they'll still get villified even if they vote for it. IMO that's why they're sitting this one out.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
The Republicans are not
June 15, 2009 - 12:32 ET by NL207The Republicans are not speaking out because they are immediately and bitterly assaulted by the MSM when they do while they get no defense for speaking out from media at any level except talk radio. These are folks trying to win elective office in a hostile media environment. I understand their reticence. I understand they don't want their families attacked, their personal reocrds stolen and published and their good names smeared. At the same time, if no one has the courage to stand up to this propaganda onslaught in defence of what is right and true, then truth will die and wrong will prevail.
What liberals don't
June 14, 2009 - 17:36 ET by gmaniac1What liberals don't understand is that health care is based on choice. I work within the confines of health care and the easiest, most advantageous payers are private insurers. Medicare and Medicaid are nightmares for everyone involved, to include the patient. Also, another thing liberals seem too stupid to understand is that we have a national health insurance system, Medicare/Medicaid. If you "choose" not to use it that's your business. It's never enough for these weasels in government in trying to suck us dry of our income and ideals. The problem is that a lot of people have surrendered to the left and are too cowardly to try to break out on their own.
When the people fear the government it's called tyranny, when the government fears the people it's called liberty!
How many of the 47 million
June 14, 2009 - 19:20 ET by nwahsHow many of the uninsured are "immortal" twenty somethings that have recently been dropped by their parents insurance, and have yet to secure insurance on their own? The devil is in the details. The 47 million is a lie.
http://newsbusters.o...
And a good number of the
June 14, 2009 - 21:39 ET by motherbeltAnd a good number of the younger uninsured are that way by choice; they are pretty healthy and likely to stay that way, so they spend their money on other things.
This is the group that would benefit from being able to purchase a less expensive catastrophic-only plan, in case they do get seriously ill or injured.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Thats what I mean
June 14, 2009 - 21:46 ET by nwahsWhen I was in my twenties and thirties, I thought I was immortal. I wasn't worried about health insurance. As luck had it, my employer provided it, but if they didn't , I wouldn't have bought it.
http://newsbusters.o...
nwahs
June 14, 2009 - 21:57 ET by Noel Sheppardnwahs,
Exactly. If I was younger and single, or even just younger without children, I wouldn't have health insurance. Even at my current age, if I was single without children, I'd only have catastrophic coverage for very serious illnesses. As I'm a fit, healthy person, my recurring medical needs are few and far between.
When I think about all the money I've spent on health insurance the past 30 years versus claims I've made, it makes me sick. If I would have self-insured that whole time, it could be worth $250k assuming conservative investment returns. ns
Noel, and then what would
June 14, 2009 - 22:02 ET by motherbeltNoel, and then what would happen is that when you got older and needed it, you wouldn't be able to get it! ;-)
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
MB
June 14, 2009 - 22:09 ET by Noel SheppardMB,
Only if you develop an existing condition prior to getting insurance. I own an insurance agency. :-) ns
Well I was figuring that by
June 14, 2009 - 22:11 ET by motherbeltWell I was figuring that by the time you really want insurance you will have developed something.
Of course if you own an insurance agency....well <Emily Litella voice> Never mind....
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
MB
June 14, 2009 - 22:16 ET by Noel SheppardMB,
Well, that's why at probably 40 or so, one should at least have a catastrophic policy. Then, pre-existings won't kill you when they crop up.
I went through this with my kids a couple of years ago
June 14, 2009 - 22:16 ET by nwahsThey were out of school and no longer covered on my insurance. There was no possible way, I could make them worry about that. They're invincible. Thankfully, both now have insurance provided through their jobs.
http://newsbusters.o...
Brazile's face priceless
June 14, 2009 - 20:16 ET by metaphorsbwithuI saw that too. My favorite part was when Donna Brazile's face froze and her eyes glazed over before she tried to respond to Will's last point about the "illegal" uninsured in San Francisco.
I'm glad someone like Will finally had the guts to let that cat out of the bag.
metaphorsbwithu
A lot of people (especially
June 14, 2009 - 21:41 ET by RR GOPA lot of people (especially younger ones) have no inclination to get health insurance. They simply don't need it. If anything bad happens, they figure it would most likely be on the job (workman's comp) or in an auto accident (auto insurance). If it's something big, then they'd worry about that if/when it happens.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
Citizenship! What's that got to do with it?
June 14, 2009 - 21:57 ET by Hooterville DenizenAs the ad says “membership has its privileges.” Or, in this case, citizenship has its privileges. There should be a distinction between government services available to citizens and non-citizens. But, activist judges say otherwise... (sigh).
Elderly in Holland
June 14, 2009 - 22:04 ET by amilkThe Dutch have socialized health care. And I've heard that those over 65 think twice about paying a visit to their hospital, because the doctors and nurses have been given the right of euthanasia in extreme cases. But who's to argue the meaning of "extreme".
Obama intends to drive private health insurers out of business
June 14, 2009 - 22:23 ET by R D HelmHe is lying through his teeth when he says otherwise:
http://hotair.com/ar...
This is the same Obama who also said he didn't want to run the banks, the mortgage industry or the car companies, either, yet he is doing all of those things.
-Dave
Obama's health care "reform" plan is to blow up the building in order to fix a leak in the roof-Herman Cain
Yeah, that is exactly what
June 14, 2009 - 22:28 ET by bigtimerYeah, that is exactly what he's doing, not all of this nation is stupid.
Hopefully, those who voted for him previously will wake up, if it's not already too late, I have to have hope for 2010 and '12.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Obama lies
June 15, 2009 - 10:06 ET by jessieHjessieH Obama lies through his teeth. If he opens his mouth, it's a lie........The healthcare bill was written by a murderer & a corrupt thief...........The govt. needs to get out of our lives, not regulate them. I have friends thinking about moving to Canada. Not for healthcare, just to get away from Obama & his minions. They think he is too much like Hitler..............I agree 100%.
obamanomics, obamacare,obama.....
June 16, 2009 - 13:39 ET by east tennessee johnMaybe it's starting to sink in. Our little Marxist, BO, wants to control two of the elements that make market capitalism function, capital and risk. With a minimum of a trillion in deficits for the next DECADE, Comrade O certainly is going to impact the capital markets in trying to finance this unprescedented debt. Simultaneously, he's going to move us towards his desired single payor program by putting the private market out of business. Where is BO's famous "tranparency" when it comes to this "public option"? Will it be subject to the same restrictions as privte health insurers? If not, why the advantage? After the private insurers are priced out of business, what becomes of the billions they normally invest in the economy? What will be the impact on interest rates, capital formation, investment markets? Once those funds are eliminated from the system, they're gone. What's going to replace them? All of this from someone who's never read a book on market economics that wasn't a critique, who's only prior "executive" experience was the Anneberg Challenge in Chicago, which was a failure, spending other people's money of course. And the lapdogs in the MSM can't get enough. Surreal.
Cost Shifting is Not Sustainable By Any Means
June 17, 2009 - 17:24 ET by BenDoubleCrossedCost shifting
Why does a four day hospital stay cost $21,000?
America was hooked on health care the way junkies were hooked on smack. The dealer gave free samples until the client was hooked.
When I was a young man and America was the world’s manufacturer. Factories provided free and complete health insurance as part of the benefits package. Because it was free it was abused. Mom took children to the emergency room for a rash and to the doctor for a small cut. Demand was artificially high.
Over time manufacturing jobs moved overseas and were replaced with lower paying service economy jobs. And employers offered health insurance with less coverage and higher deductibles. Was it because America could not compete with manufacturers in countries where government paid for health care. Regardless, American leaders signed GATT and NAFTA into law!
And America’s leaders permitted millions of illegal aliens to cross the border to do work American’s would not do. Our schools educated their children, our State governments gave them drivers licenses, our banks granted them mortgages and our hospitals provided them health care.
Robin Hood wears whites. Patients with good insurance policies and patients with no insurance policies received inflated invoices to cover the costs of those who could not pay. Hospitals robbed from the rich to provide health care for the poor.
President Obama made the analogy everyone should have to buy health insurance just like every motorist is required to buy auto insurance. But people choose to own a car. Were you asked if you wanted to be born?
If government run universal health care is the answer then private insurance has no place at the table. Where is freedom when government has the power to tell you how to spend after tax dollars? Requiring elderly and the poor to buy health insurance will force some to give up food or shelter!
Nonetheless, since everyone will have government health care, the cost of a hospital stay should be reduced to the price of a high end hotel! Cost shifting will have been replaced by the treasury printing more money.
WAKE UP AMERICA!
Real wealth cannot be created with a printing press. It only creates inflation. Congress must do away with the Fed and reclaim responsibility for regulating the money supply.
Congress should not:
Bail out failed corporations. Rather, allow free enterprise to transfer wealth to companies that make good decisions.
Impose new mileage and pollution requirements on an automobile industry already reeling from a failing economy.
Pass Cap and Trade. It will increase the cost of energy and exacerbate America’s failing economy and oppress the poor and middle class.
Congress should:
Create new jobs in America and keep the wealth here: The Germans fought WWII with synthetic gas produced from coal. America has 1/4th of the coal reserves on Earth. Liquefy coal and declare energy independence from Arab enemies. Now that is sustainable!
Pass the One Bill at a Time Act and end the excuse I had to vote for what I did not like to get what I did.
Pass the Read the Bills Act. Why are we paying representatives if they don’t know what they are voting for?
Pass the Write the Bills Act. If representatives have to write the bills them selves their will be fewer, shorter, better and only necessary new laws passed.
Make sure new legislation is not contrary to the Constitution and Bill of Rights
Repatriate illegal aliens and enforce immigration laws
Let other countries pay for their own defense and create their own democracies
Get a grip!
June 21, 2009 - 15:38 ET by cpmondelloAll I say, when the "right" wants "free market" they need to allow the government to compete in that free market.
The Obama Nation?
June 21, 2009 - 15:40 ET by Retired GeekAn indentured servant is a form of debt bondage worker.
Historically 'Indentured Servants' were required to work a specific number of years, usually (3 to 7), but the 'Hope' Obama brings with his 'Change', is that the 'Indentured Servants' will only serve from April 15 of one year to April 15 of the next.
The 'Indentured Servitude' class or 'Collective' that Barack Obama is creating, will only be a segment of the American Citizens, comprised of those who willingly work in an attempt to provide for themselves and their families - all others are exempt.
The children of the 'Indentured Servant Class' automatically inherit the 'Debt Bondage' of their parents.
Barack Obama hails this 'Indentured Collective' as Patriotic and a 'Sacrifice for the Common Good'.
This 'Collective' is quite similar to 'Share Cropping', where the worker is allowed to keep a small portion of their labor for personal use.
Barack Obama is NOW destroying the American farmer and food supply, by with holding water to 100,000 square miles of the most fertile land on Earth in California.
The control of the 'Food Supply' is necessary to Barack Obama, so that he can ration enough food for the 'Indentured Servants' to remain alive and work.
Those who are NOT in the 'Indentured Servant Collective' will become the owners and operators, of the 'Indentured Servitude Collective'.
This is but one small aspect of the 'Hope and Change' Barack Obama is bringing to America.