Buy My Book Here

Fox News Ticker

Please check out my new books, "Prosecutors Gone Wild: The Inside Story of the Trial of Chuck Panici, John Gliottoni, and Louise Marshall" and also, "The Definitive Dossier of PTSD in Whistleblowers"

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Liberal Lies, Misconceptions, and Misunderstandings about Health Care Reform

The president is fond of correcting some of the most "egregious" lies and misconceptions that he sees coming from the other side: death panels, health care for illegals, tax payer funded abortions, etc. Well, I would say that you should take care of your own backyard before you worry about your neighbors'. So, here's some of the biggest lies, misconceptions, and misunderstandings from liberals on health care reform

1)Health care reform opponents are secretly racist, and they only oppose reform because the president is black.

I've known my fair share of racists in my life. None of them were shy about it. They didn't use code words to cover for their racism. They just come out and say it. One of the biggest things that bothers me about racists is that they are so proud of their racism. There are plenty of people that don't like the president because of the color of his skin, however those people aren't shy about it.

The media, and some of the president's supporters like Jimmy Carter, Nancy Pelosi, and Jim Clybourn, would have us believe that everyone is secretly racist, but that the racism comes out in some sort of cryptic language like the word socialists. The same people that couldn't get enough of eight years of demeaning President Bush now seem to think that any criticism of President Obama is racist code. That's just nonsense. Those that hate the president because of the color of his skin will just say so. Those that oppose his policies just don't like his policies.

2)The plan will/ will not do...

There is no plan. Don't say the plan will bend the cost curve, make sure that no one will be denied coverage, not add to the deficit, etc. when you know there is no plan. The House has a plan, but the President hasn't endorsed that. Max Baucus has a plan, but the president hasn't signed onto that either. You can't claim a plan will do something if THERE IS NO PLAN. No one knows what the plan will do since there is still no plan. We can all analyze and hyper analyze the House plan. We can do the same with the Baucus plan. The president isn't necessarily on board with either of them. We can speculate and theorize what a public option might do, but we don't know because there is no plan. The president is making a lot of promises but there's no way test any of those promises because there is no plan.

3)A government option will simply keep the insurance industry honest.

If it's that simple, let's also have a public gasoline company, retailer, software company, etc. If we just need to keep them honest, we should keep every industry honest. Why are some only insistent on keeping the insurance industry honest but not all industries? Government competition doesn't keep private industries honest. That's done with proper regulation. Governments don't compete with private industry. They takeover private industry. It's hard to compete when one side has the power to tax, make money, and carry debt for an indefinite future. So, let's not pretend as though the public option is simply meant to create competition. It's meant to take over.

4) We can insure more people, do it for less, and provide better health care all at once.

There's also the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, and unicorns. If you still think that's true, I would like to sell you some nice land in Mogadishu. If you want universal coverage because you believe everyone should get health care , that's one thing. If you want to provide free health care and claim that all of this will wind up costing less, then you're just lying.

5) Health care reform isn't moving forward because Republicans are obstructing in a desperate attempt to sabotage the Obama presidency.

First, the first job of the opposition is to oppose. Second, I seem to remember some heavy opposition to Social Security reform, Fannie/Freddie reform, Iraq, and the Bush tax cuts. What do we call that? Was there not a political element to the opposition? Were some not obstructing because passing sweeping Social Security reform would have been a big win for the President? More than that, when you have filibuster proof majorities in both chambers, it's a bit absurd to say it's the other side's fault that things aren't moving forward. In fact, the reason that health care reform isn't passing is because there's a political civil war within the Democratic party. It has almost nothing to do the with the Republicans. Sure the Republicans oppose health care reform. The Democrats' idea of compromise is co ops instead of the public option and an $850 billion bill instead of a trillion dollars. Still, the Democrats don't need the Republicans, and so that it hasn't passed yet is laid entirely on the Democratic party.


Anonymous said...

Now you're taking your post titles from Ann Coulter.


Anonymous said...

"If it's that simple, let's also have a public gasoline company, retailer, software company, etc."

We do have a public software company. Its called open source.

And almost every other country on earth has a public petroleum company.

But in all seriousness, there are plenty of countries with public health systems, and they're not socialist dictatorships with gulags and famines.

mike volpe said...

First of all, I don't read Ann Coulter so if I copied her title it's entirely by accident.

Second, none of those public health insurance systems provides nearly as good a health care as our system does. So, I don't know what your point is. Frankly, most of those countries are close to fully socialist if not there already.

Anonymous said...

Correction 1.
None of the other public systems healthcare provide nearly as good health care if you have the money.

Correction 2
Numerous studies point to the low quality of healthcare for the overall general population of the U.S.

How can you deny that a public option would force private profit focused health insurers to lower costs??
Seriously, how can you deny that??

Your argument is really this.
I have money and my family and I will always have a good level of healthcare. But I will be god-damned if i want to pay another cent of MY hard earned money to subsidize someone else's family.

In other words, you have selfish.

mike volpe said...

I don't know what these studies are so it's hard to argue. The U.S. has the best health care system in the world. 80% of those with health insurance are happy with their insurance. About 85% of the public have health isurance. Yet, you and the president claim that the system is in such trouble that it needs an overhaul and a public health insurance option.

The public health insurance option won't merely lower prices but remove all private health insurers from the market entirely.

Anonymous said...

Let's talk about quality of health care and leave aside the clear fact that the U.S spend far too much as a percentage of GDP relative to other Western countries which almost all have government run systems.

The problem with most people is they are not interested in studies. If the studies don't suit their PRECONCEIVED notions of what they want they claim the study is wrong, or that studies can mean anything.

If the study supports their PRECONCEIVED notion of right and wrong, they use the study as evidence of the rightness of their position.

Arguing U.S citizens are satisfied doesn't mean its a good system. [And by the way where is your link proving this.] Its all to do with expectation. If you expect less or are accustomed to a certain level, then you will say its good. I would argue American people are, on the whole, quite uninformed about other healthcare systems and have no experience of living under them

So, in measuring, the quality of healthcare, we need to agree on what are the criteria by which we judge the system.

What are your criteria for a good quality health care system Mike??
I use objective criteria, not subjective ones. infant mortality and life expectancy.

For my information.

The U.S. pays twice as much yet lags other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy, which are among the most widely collected, hence useful, international comparative statistics. For 2006-2010, the U.S. life expectancy will lag 38th in the world, after most rich nations, lagging last of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, U.K., U.S.) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th)

mike volpe said...

I'm sorry but did you give me a wikipedia page. That's not exactly a study.

there are many reasons for mortality rates: murders, highway deaths, obesity rates. That's proof of nothing. It's the same with infant mortality rates. The U.S. also has significantly higher rates of cures for most diseases. So, again, is there a study that shows our health care isn't the best in the world.

Anonymous said...

The Wikipedia page cites numerous studies at the bottom in the footnotes. It is full of information from real studies by independent groups, as opposed to partisan talking points, which so far is all you have provided in your very shallow piece.

Did you actually read it??

U.S. healthcare is the best in the world. Really???? Please cite the study [studies] showing this.

While I am at it, here is another study [which i wonder if you will actually read - as opposed to totally ignore or skim through looking for something to "make you right"]

What do you think Mike? is it more liberal bunkum. One good thing about the study is it isnt financed by health insurance companies.

P.S. Do you own stocks in the health insurance companies?

mike volpe said...

The wikipedia page simply cites numerous studies on both sides, so I don't know what you think you have proven. The second study is the absurd WHO study that gives extra credit for having universal health care. a year ago when it first came out. It was done by people that want universal health care. That's not exactly an unbiased group either.

Look there are plenty of studies that everyone can cite. I still don't see your point. It doesn't prove that universal health care is a good idea.