Can you tell me a believable enough lie about the conservative opposition to health care reform?

Healthcare reform is noble and needed, but to rush into it without thinking the whole thing through is foolish. There is a lot of misinformation from both sides, but the fact of the matter is that the white house is making it sound like it will be great for everyone, but in fact that along with the positives, there are significant negatives that no one seems to talk about.

the first and major concern is rationing: It is undeniable that resources (doctors, clinics, hospitals, and especially money) is limited. We are proposing (if you believe the statistics) putting and additonal 47 million people into this system without increasing the resources. There is no way of doing this without rationing, longer waits, etc. Conservavtive or Liberal you have to believe this.

The second major concern is cost. There has never been a Government program implemented that costs even resembled what was predicted. We are predicting a trillion dollars, that means we can expect a significant multiple of this. And our answer to this is to Tax the small businesses we need to create jobs to get out of the worst economy since the great depression?

Close to 90% of the people are insured, for the immediate time, we should do what we need to help that 10% without bankrupting our nation.

We should also look closer at other reasons why health care is so expensive: Tort reform could help

Lets slow down and think about what we are doing!

They’ll take your children! Everyone panic starting… NOW!~

@dfc95, on “rationing”—you are making several false assumptions.

First of all, we currently ration health care. Insurance companies routinely deny care based on a profit model. In fact, some would say that this is the central problem with health care in this country.

Secondly, you are correct to point out that health care is a scarce resource. But it makes no sense to say that just because a resource is scarce, it’s going to be “rationed.”

Thirdly, why do you think it’s the health care bill’s responsibility to increase the resources? Don’t you believe in markets? If there is additional demand for a scarce resource like health care, the market will create additional supply.

As for cost, government-run health care systems in other countries spend a fraction of cost that we do in America. Much of the trillion dollars comes in the form of subsidies to poor people to help them afford health care—and much of that is paid for by additional taxes to the rich. Aside from some vague pessimism about government inefficiency, can you give a specific reason against this proposal?

As for “bankrupting our nation,” nations don’t go bankrupt. And besides, the proposal is paid for through higher taxes.

As for tort reform, some states have actually tried this. Any positive results you can point to?

Finally, as to the idea of “slowing down”—we have been having this debate for longer than I have been alive. There isn’t much new to say; there isn’t much that hasn’t already been thought of by policy experts from both sides. Why do you think we need to slow down? You certainly already seem to have made up your mind.

@dfc95 You did not answer the question at all. In fact, you added several more conservative lies to the mix.

1) There will be no rationing. In fact, the supply will expand to meet the demand. It will be a one-time bump in demand, and then, counter-intuitively, demand will go down (as people get healthier). Second of all, it totally ignores the rationing that is going on now, which is much more severe than anything that will happen under reform. Millions of people are going without needed care because they don’t have insurance. This is costing the nation billions in lost productivity.

2) Again, with cost, there will be a one-time bump, as all the unfulfilled demand hits at once. Then the costs will decline. Doubly so if sensible cost-control mechanisms are introduced. Of course, since it is not a single-payer plan, and it looks like the public plan is being ditched, the ability to control costs is being hamstrung, so, due to conservative idiocy, you are probably right about costs.

3) Tort Reform is a red herring. It could possibly save 1% of health spending—a drop in the bucket, especially when compared to the cost of an increasing amount of “mistakes” since doctors and other providers will no longer be held responsible for their errors in judgment and their negligence.

Conservatives, again, through their lying lies, are creating the very problems they describe, instead of helping this country. Wish fulfillment. I truly don’t understand the venality and self-destructiveness they exhibit.

How about this; Obama is allowing any and all outsiders to come in so they can take over America while our military is away!? By the way I’m a republican and no I don’t think this!

@Qingu Countries can go bankrupt, sort of. See Iceland.

Oh, and most everything is scarce.

Anyway, does the actual proposal even exist yet? Has anybody read it?

I am not going to answer your question directly, but I will bring up a point that concerns me. As a moderate, there is one part of the health reform bill that I find egregious. Correct me if I am wrong.

Health care for illegal aliens and non-citizens. I think that wonderful lying bitch Nancy Pelosi brought that into the mix. Between her and Harry Reid, the progressives really need to find better spokespersons for the Democratic agenda. And I voted for Obama, so don’t get me wrong.

I do not side with either party, since I am an independent, and to label the Republicans as evil and the Democrats as knights in shining armor is erroneous. Both sides have agendas that aren’t in the best interest of the American people. Consider corn based entanol, biggest boondoggle since Reagan’s Star Wars defense shield.

I am all for health care reform, and have been since Clinton first proposed it. Who pays for it? Taxpayers that make over $250,000 as Obama suggests? People in that tax range and above have found ways to avoid paying the taxes they owe now, how do we enforce the new tax laws?

And like any new government program, we need to move carefully. Just jumping in with both feet without knowing how deep the water is, is foolish. And lest you forget, Obama is a Chicago politician. Google Chicago political history for more insight into that.

@evelyns_pet_zebra, illegal aliens and non-citizens will not get free health care.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/30/chain-email/no-free-health-care-illegal-immigrants-health-bill/

This is a “pants on fire” lie.

Also, “The section says nothing about “non-US citizens” or immigrants, legal or otherwise. In fact, the legislation specifically states that “undocumented aliens” will not be eligible for credits to help them buy health insurance, in Section 246 on page 143.”

Also, “Chicago politician, oooo scary”? Really? I thought that nonsense would have gotten old after the election.

Once again, conservatives exhibit a great facility for shooting themselves in the foot—trying to sabotage reform.

Right now, we are already paying for non-citizens and undocumented aliens’ health care. Hospitals and other providers must care for everyone who shows up, regardless of ability to pay. Of course, our current policies put so much fear in everyone, that they don’t get care until it is way too late, thus costing us far more.

We want everyone to have appropriate care because that is the cheapest way to deliver health care. This includes the disenfranchised. We want people to be well and stay well. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. True now as it was when the proverb was invented. We could save billions by covering everyone, including undocumented aliens. We would increase productivity enormously. We would increase health and well-being. Health care reform, in the long run, is a huge cost saver, not an expense. Any bump in taxes to fund it would be temporary, and then taxes would come down to a much lower level, as all the needed but unconsumed medical care was taken care of.

If you introduced single-payer reform, the savings would be immediate, as billions in unneeded administrative costs would be eliminated in a stroke of the pen. As seen in this analysis by the conservative consulting group, Lewin and Associates, a single-payer like plan saves the most money.

The problem is that the savings are experienced by businesses. Their cost for health insurance would be eliminated, saving 12 or 13 thousand dollars per employee that would be added to salaries, instead of deducted for insurance premiums. Federal taxes would go up, but not by nearly as much as salaries would rise, leading to a net increase in take-home pay for every worker who works for a firm that provides health insurance. Small companies who provide insurance would probably save the most, since their insurance costs are the highest. Since they provide the bulk of new jobs, real health care reform would act as a net stimulus to the economy—perhaps the largest possible stimulus.

@Qingu, ever live in IL? Understand IL politics? Understand the Daley Machine? Your assumption that Chicago politicis is a bogeyman and your condescending attitude is an insult and portrays me as someone to be ridiculed.

Unless you are familiar with how it is to live in IL and how it is to deal with the whole concept and history of Cook County vs. Downstaters, you have no reason to be condescending at all. Try reading some columns by Rich Miller, who covers IL politics from the capitol, and has done so for many years. He was the first one to warn the nation of Baloneyovich’s illegal activities, when everyone else was still in the fucking dark.

I live in Chicago. I’m quite familiar with the cesspool that is Chicago politics.

I fail to see what this has to do with Barack Obama. Unless you’re arguing that he’s experienced in dealing with a climate of corruption?

I hope I don’t need to point out the logical flaw in “Most Chicago politicians are corrupt, therefore, Barack Obama is corrupt”

Well, its hard to see the corruption of Chicago from the inside. Trying living downstate once, and when you see your tax dollars go to support ‘progressive welfare projects’ that are of no concern of those who actually work for a living.

personally, I think IL would be best to either let Chicago succeed to Wisconsin and become South South Milwaukee, or just to move the whole city 35 miles East, that way, you would only see the top of the Sears tower above the waves.~

I get the feeling we’re talking past each other.

I’m not denying that Chicago politics is incredibly corrupt.

I’m denying that you can apply that general case to the specific case of Barack Obama without evidence.

@evelyns_pet_zebra- You’re arguing with @Qingu from both sides. First you ask, ”...ever live in IL? Understand IL politics? Understand the Daley Machine?” Then when the response is, “I live in Chicago” you say, “Well, its hard to see the corruption of Chicago from the inside.” you kind of discredit any valid point you may have on the topic.

Dfc
Where do you get the idea that ninety percent of our population has insurance?!!
After reading that in your post, I skipped the rest. If you don’t have that basic fact right then you probably don’t have a clue about what you are talking about.
Sorry to sound harsh… But really… How could anyone believe that statistic!

America has 307 million people.

47 million don’t have health insurance.

So 260 million do. 260/307 = about 85% of people have insurance. Not too far off…

Qingu, not sure where you are getting your numbers but my guess is that statistic includes those covered by public insurance such as Medicare or Medicaid.
The most recent census data, approximately 18% self identified as being uninsured. People who had government subsidized insurance stated they were insured.
The number of people with employer based insurance plans have been steadily dropping since 2006 and continues at an alarming rate. In addition the coverage for both public and private insurance has seen cuts in vision, dental, and other medical needs.
Take your statistic and remove those who receive state funded insurance benefits and I believe you will better understand the need.
The fact of the matter is that we already have a governent run health care system in medicaid and medicare but we are dong it all backwards. We need to put the money up front, emphasize preventative health care, and quit spending more than we need to chasing the needs after the fact.
Other countries do it quite well. And, before anyone starts in on Canadian health care, you should know that there is a lot of propoganda out there right now about it’s flaws. And while no system is without flaws, one needs to examine more than one or two bad ex periences to understand the bigger picture.

@basp, I’m with you on the need for health reform, and I’d support a single payer system. I just thought you may have overreacted to the 90% figure. Technically, 85% of people have “insurance”—you are correct that some of that insurance is public (i.e. medicare, etc), but saying 90% of people have insurance isn’t too egregious.

Qingu
a convienent way to skew the statistics. Most people would naturally assume ‘insurance’ to be private paid and not government subsidized if not given that nformation.
My experience has been that those who are opposed to health care reform have never been in a real medical crisis situation where insurance would make the difference. Most americans are only one hospital stay away from bankruptcy. In fact, most family bankruptcies are due to medical bills,whether there is insurance or not.
Sorry if I sounded like I came down hard on this one but it is a topic I am very passionate about.

I still need a non-factual accusation that discredits the ideas of people who support the status quo. It has to be inflammatory, believable by those who do not look at facts, and condemning.

I overheard this on the bus from some ladies who read it in a newspaper they found in a laundromat, so it must be true: There are going to be forced sex changes, after which you will be forced to have sex with everyone on your sex panel. You will feel so filthy after all of this that you will want to take a shower, but instead of water, poison gas will come out and kill you.

The people you love most will find you dead as a doornail, with all your naked, semi-engorged private parts in places and states they shouldn’t be, so that you would die of embarrassment if you weren’t already dead. Then, if you ever voted Democratic in your entire life, you will go straight to Hell, where you will be buggered to a faretheewell by a turban-wearing President Obama while Karl Marx and Fidel Castro take turns holding you down and Ann Coulter shoves poppers up your nose for all eternity.

And what proves it is you know those liberals are just that way.

@Daloon, seems like you’re doing an admirable job of answering your own question:

- “Republicans are against knowing what their parents want in their final days and hours of life. They must hate their parents.”
– “Conservatives… are creating the very problems they describe.”
– “Conservatives… [are] trying to sabotage reform.”

And then, I end up confused, because in your last quip you explain that this lie “has to be inflammatory, believable by those who do not look at facts, and condemning.” Who’s the audience for this lie? The noble, super-intelligent, knows-what-best-for-everyone-progressives? You know, the ones too smart to be duped by invented balderdash.

—

[ How on earth this hasn’t been mod’d as flamebait already, I guess I’ll never know. ]

I’m new here. But this question seems to want to muddy the waters more….to throw into the mix more confusion by fabricating, ah,hm…..lies? To be read by those who are not curious? This will not help anything. Seems to me it will do the opposite of what needs to be done. Just to clarify,I’m new to this site, not new to America. And I saw this q in my inbox just now so I had to bite

Their belief that $ in their pockets is more important than lives of the lower middle class.

Ever time I try to comment, my flamebait alarm goes off.

If you don’t think the government is competent enough to run a health care plan then you don’t believe our troops are competent and therefore YOU DON’T SUPPORT OUR TROOPS

Speaking of flaming…..

@willm GA!!!! That’s heading the right way.

@robmandu Yeah, I seem to be answering my own question, but none of the stuff I write has any traction as far as I can tell. It’s got to be something to get the radicals out in the streets shouting down any passing Republican. I think they need a taste of their own medicine. I mean, being calm and logical doesn’t seem to be getting us anywhere.

@Qingu and @AstroChuck I concede that I have no idea what the fuck I am talking about. I retract all my statements as emotional outbursts with no bearing on the subject. I apologize for being a dumbass in this thread. =)

The belief that the strong opposition to the health care reform is truly a “grass roots” movement.

I heard today on the radio that there’s some Republican who wants to forbid Medicare from lowering drug prices for senior citizens. This is really interesting, because PHARMA has volunteered to lower drug prices, and this guy is mad at them for doing that! WTF?

I heard there are some progressives who want to make crack cocaine legal for anyone who wants it. But then they want to criticize Rush Limbaugh because he was addicted to pharmaceutical pain killers years ago.

—

There’s idiots in any large enough crowd. I still think coherent discussion of intelligent policy either way is the thing to do. Not let sensationalized media/blogger reports distract us from the real job.

@daloon “I think they need a taste of their own medicine. I mean, being calm and logical doesn’t seem to be getting us anywhere.” That was what I was saying last Fall after Prop 8 passed. But then all my liberal friends were trying to calm me down saying you catch more flies with sweet reasonableness than with ripping them to shreds in every public forum you could find.

Actually, daloon, Medicare is already forbidden from lowing drug prices for senior citizens, thanks to the Bush Administration and the all Republican Congress circa 2004. Now Medicare Part D is a cash bonanza for big Pharma.

@robmandu Actually, what “liberals” criticized Rush Limbaugh for is not his Oxycontin addiction per se but his bald face hypocrisy in declaring that drug crimes deserve punishment, and not accepting that punishment himself.

“Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up,” Limbaugh said.

Limbaugh, as you may recall, got off with a slap on the wrist while a wheelchair-bound black man named Richard Paey convicted in the same jurisdiction of the same crime as Limbaugh’s around the same time got 25 years in prison (even though he was taking the pills out of necessity for chronic pain instead of recreationally).

@MontyZuma, I said ”some progressives” and it was in direct juxtaposition to @daloon‘s suggested “lie” about Republicans. Of course, there’s way more to the discussion.

People! Soylent green is people!

I think supporters of real health care reform should spread only truthful information. Why should we stoop to the level the corporations and their lapdogs? Take the higher ground and set the standard for truth, I agree with what woodcutter said

@robmandu Ah, “liberals” and “some progressives” very different; I stand corrected.

My point was that the Left’s criticism of Limbaugh was reasonable, justified and commonplace, and not the views of a few idiots or loons who seem to inhabit any crowd.

My other point was that the Republicans forbidding Medicare to lower prices for seniors was in fact a long-standing Republican policy going back to at least 2004, and not a “lie” put out by idiots.

clearly, they are immortal. and being immortal is no fun when the other party is able to do it too, with magical health care reforms.

i say this in jest, of course. i’m not very politically minded, but i sure like making conspiracy theories

My blogger friends had a pretty decent post on this subject.

STOP THE CANNIBAL MUTANTS

I got to this question late but here are a few.
1)The cost of health care is increasing at 27.3% per year due to the increased number of people without HC requiring services. That means costs will effectively double in 3 years. Big businesses cannot continue to provide this to employees and remain competitive.
2)The average Emergency room visit cost is $3700. 93% of that is for overhead and billing only 7% is for services.
3)The head of Excellus BCBS and other insurance providers are paid an average of $4.5M per year for a purely administrative position. (Honestly he was paid ~700,000 in 1991 see link .
4)In today’s system bonuses are paid to hospitals and doctors who reduce the costs per patient by eliminating tests, services, reducing prescriptions. Doctors are being paid to be their own “Death Panel Agents”. In 2003 California alone more than $56M was paid to physicians as a reward for reducing needed health care costs.

How’d I do?

@Lupin Pretty good! Thanks!

@daloon As you can see, there is a grain of truth in all of them. Just like the twisted righty junk with ground up babies and death panels. Go git ‘em.