Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

[jimbob]

And let's not forget the egregious lie about Obamacare being a "government takeover of healthcare":

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/

Please don't forget the stupid too:

How about,

"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

 

[3point14]

I was referring to the general usage of the phrase "death panel," not to Palin's quote specifically. But, hey, if it makes you feel any better, I'm willing to call her comment a lie in spirit (technically, she doesn't actually state a claim) and hope she suffers a terrible political backlash. May she retire to Wasilla and never play a role in politics again. That would actually be a terrible thing for Democrats by the way.

That's some top class wriggling right there, I'm impressed, well done!



I have a question for everybody...

Any actual healthcare savings are going to come from reduced A&E visits (I'm guessing), substituting cheaper treatments in advance for more expensive treatments at an A&E (ER) unit.

How long will it be before these savings can be seen in the numbers?

Are there any projections for this?

 

[sunmaster14]

Many prominent Republicans happily accused the president of wanting to kill old people, including the current Speaker of the House:

Could you point out where Boehner accused the president of wanting to kill old people? It seems to me that Boehner was worried that a particular provision in the law could be abused. It's not a lie to demogogue that issue, let alone have concerns about it.

Then of course here's the whole "job-killing" meme that Republicans desperately tried to push after they failed to scare people into believing Obamacare would kill old people.

And this, much like their "death panel" lie, was of course demonstrated to be a fabrication:

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/01/a-job-killing-law/

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/gops-job-killing-whopper-again-2/

The law does kill jobs. The factcheck articles contain egregious errors themselves. For starters, the article doesn't understand that the job losses as calculated by the CBO are net. By definition, the net jobs lost go unfilled. Second, the article tries to make a distinction between choosing not to work and not being able to find work, which is more semantic than real. I suppose there are cases of people with expensive medical conditions who would normally like to retire but must continue to work just for the health insurance. Those cases are interesting in that they're actually receiving enormous compensation, far above market rate, for their work. That's a market distortion that seems reasonable to alleviate. But the CBO has said that the main effect in job losses is from the increased marginal tax rate imposed by Obamacare implicitly on lower-income work. For these people, Obamacare basically makes it less financially rewarding to work. That is not a good thing, and the labor that those people would otherwise do is lost to the economy.

And let's not forget the egregious lie about Obamacare being a "government takeover of healthcare":

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/

Once again this just proves how ridiculous Politifact is. What constitutes a government takeover is a matter of opinion and calling Obamacare that is fair political rhetoric. The law expands government control over the health care sector dramatically. It tightly regulates the financial product that the vast majority of people use to pay for health care and indeed aims to force more people to use that product. It prescribes how that product must be designed, what services it must cover, to whom it can be offered, and constrains how it must be priced.

And since that product is used to pay for the vast majority of health care services in this country, that gives the government firm, if indirect, control over the price of virtually all the medical services offered in the country. In my book, that's a government takeover.

 

[johnny karate]

And once again sunmaster14, you do not fail to disappoint.

But if we're allowing that level of rationalization, then how can you ever determine that Obama or any democrat ever lied about Obamacare?

 

[sunmaster14]

Please don't forget the stupid too:

Yes, that is pretty stupid. Funny too. I don't agree with the attacks on the unpleasant rationing that must be implemented under socialized health care. If you have limited resources and potentially unlimited demand (human beings can get their fill of iPods, but we can never have enough health care as we get older), rationing has to be done. It will either be by price, by queue, or by government fiat (i.e. a "death" panel ). It is possible to point to heartrending examples not matter what you do.

 

[sunmaster14]

And once again sunmaster14, you do not fail to disappoint.

But if we're allowing that level of rationalization, then how can you ever determine that Obama or any democrat ever lied about Obamacare?

Look, I'll admit I'm a partisan, but I try to be fair. I honestly don't believe the lies you listed were lies. Arguably, the death panel thing is unreasonable demagoguery.

The lie the Dems told about Obamacare, which I believe is impossible to rationalize, is that "if you like your health insurance, you get to keep your health insurance, and if you like your doctor, you get to keep your doctor."

Here's how I would try to rationalize it if I were a partisan Dem. I would say, "look, obviously he couldn't promise these things wouldn't change for you. Health insurance changes from year to year. It always has. All he was saying is that if you already have health insurance, Obamacare doesn't really affect you and you don't need to worry about signing up on an exchange or doing anything different than you're already doing."

The reason why that fails is that Obamacare was specifically designed to disrupt the health care market. It had to in order to accomplish their goals of extending health insurance to the previously uninsured while still keeping costs contained. The designers, including I think Obama, although perhaps not idiots like Pelosi and Reid, knew that 50-80MM people would see very significant changes in their health care plans because of Obamacare. It hasn't even happened yet because Obama keeps delaying the employer mandate in order to push the day of reckoning past the next election.

 

[johnny karate]

Look, I'll admit I'm a partisan, but I try to be fair. I honestly don't believe the lies you listed were lies. Arguably, the death panel thing is unreasonable demagoguery.

The lie the Dems told about Obamacare, which I believe is impossible to rationalize, is that "if you like your health insurance, you get to keep your health insurance, and if you like your doctor, you get to keep your doctor."

Here's how I would try to rationalize it if I were a partisan Dem. I would say, "look, obviously he couldn't promise these things wouldn't change for you. Health insurance changes from year to year. It always has. All he was saying is that if you already have health insurance, Obamacare doesn't really affect you and you don't need to worry about signing up on an exchange or doing anything different than you're already doing."

The reason why that fails is that Obamacare was specifically designed to disrupt the health care market. It had to in order to accomplish their goals of extending health insurance to the previously uninsured while still keeping costs contained. The designers, including I think Obama, although perhaps not idiots like Pelosi and Reid, knew that 50-80MM people would see very significant changes in their health care plans because of Obamacare. It hasn't even happened yet because Obama keeps delaying the employer mandate in order to push the day of reckoning past the next election.

A lie, by definition, is an untrue statement made with the intent to deceive.

Prove that "if you like your health insurance, you get to keep your health insurance, and if you like your doctor, you get to keep your doctor" was said with the intent to deceive.

 

[Unabogie]

Here's how I would try to rationalize it if I were a partisan Dem. I would say, "look, obviously he couldn't promise these things wouldn't change for you. Health insurance changes from year to year. It always has. All he was saying is that if you already have health insurance, Obamacare doesn't really affect you and you don't need to worry about signing up on an exchange or doing anything different than you're already doing."

You should have stopped here. The fact that you recognize this reality means that even you know it's true.

 

[Unabogie]

A lie, by definition, is an untrue statement made with the intent to deceive.

Prove that "if you like your health insurance, you get to keep your health insurance, and if you like your doctor, you get to keep your doctor" was said with the intent to deceive.

You'd almost have to wonder why, if their intent was to move people off plans they liked, they went through all the trouble of putting in all those grandfather clauses?

Maybe the conspiracy goes deeper than we think?

 

[sunmaster14]

You'd almost have to wonder why, if their intent was to move people off plans they liked, they went through all the trouble of putting in all those grandfather clauses?

Well, it's the exception that proves the rule isn't it? If Obamacare didn't make a whole bunch of plans illegal, then there would be no need for a grandfather clause. Not surprisingly, the grandfather clause was designed to be ineffective:

According to HHS estimates:

• 40 percent to 67 percent of individual policies will lose grandfathered status by 2011;

• 34 percent to 64 percent of large employer group plans (100 or more employees) will lose their grandfathered status by 2013: and

• 49 percent to 80 percent of small employer group plans (three to 99 employees) will lose their grandfathered status by 2013

Maybe the conspiracy goes deeper than we think?

Well, deeper than you think apparently, but not really so deep. The grandfather clause was a fig leaf, a trick, which made Obama's lie more plausible. I think that the design of the grandfather clause actually speaks to Johnny's point about deceit. It shows a well thought out intention to deceive.

 

[Unabogie]

Well, it's the exception that proves the rule isn't it? If Obamacare didn't make a whole bunch of plans illegal, then there would be no need for a grandfather clause. Not surprisingly, the grandfather clause was designed to be ineffective:

Uh, no. They were designed to smooth over the transition from ineffective plans to better plans. Even the link you posted (which is not an official link, by the way) notes that most of these plans phase out yearly anyway. So it doesn't say what you think it says.

Well, deeper than you think apparently, but not really so deep. The grandfather clause was a fig leaf, a trick, which made Obama's lie more plausible. I think that the design of the grandfather clause actually speaks to Johnny's point about deceit. It shows a well thought out intention to deceive.

It's all a trick! They didn't really mean it when they wrote explicit language that allows plans already in place to stay in place, since they knew that some of these plans would go away naturally. It's a scam!

(and not a reasonable method of transitioning to a more tenable system)

 

[DavidJames]

Ah, okay. So the grandfather aspects of the ACA were deliberately added to allow Obama to state his lie.

This is taking the concept of "critical thinking" to a whole new level

Oh, and maybe those thoughts should be taken to a whole new forum.

 

[TheSapient]

Look, I'll admit I'm a partisan, but I try to be fair. I honestly don't believe the lies you listed were lies. Arguably, the death panel thing is unreasonable demagoguery.

Everyone tries to be fair, from their own point of view. I would suggest that if your perspective is so partisan that "death panels" isn't a lie, your concept of fair probably has little value outside of the bubble of the far right.

You've provided a perfectly reasonable explanation, consistent with reality, for Obama's statement concerning our ability to keep our insurance. You've offered no such explanation for death panels. You've pointed out there is a committee formed by the AHA. You've stated your only objection to this committee is that is should have more Congressional oversight. Can you explain the existence of this committee justifies the claim that people will have their productivity judged to determine whether they get to access the heath care system?

 

[sunmaster14]

Uh, no. They were designed to smooth over the transition from ineffective plans to better plans.

How does the grandfathering smooth over the transition? As soon as any substantive change is made, a plan loses its grandfather status. So, it's not like these plans get to transition slowly over several years, so people can get acclimated without feeling like their health care has been disrupted. In the year that the insurance company determines there is a need to change virtually anything, the plan has to be thrown out completely and replaced with an Obamacare-compliant plan.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

You've stated your only objection to this committee is that is should have more Congressional oversight. Can you explain the existence of this committee justifies the claim that people will have their productivity judged to determine whether they get to access the heath care system?

My objection is not the same as my "brethren" on the right. I believe that if a health care system is paid for by the government (as Medicare is), then a sensible rationing system has to be put in place. The people on the right who scream "death panels" believe that such a rationing system inevitably leads to government bureaucrats deciding treatment based on criteria which value the lives of certain people more highly than the lives of other people. I think that's right, although I think such criteria will be based on age and health status, rather than on "productivity." A productivity-based valuation model strikes me as sufficiently repugnant that it will never happen in the US. However, that doesn't mean there aren't people on the right who believe it can happen. If they truly believe it, then they are not lying. They are predicting.

 

[3point14]

My objection is not the same as my "brethren" on the right. I believe that if a health care system is paid for by the government (as Medicare is), then a sensible rationing system has to be put in place. The people on the right who scream "death panels" believe that such a rationing system inevitably leads to government bureaucrats deciding treatment based on criteria which value the lives of certain people more highly than the lives of other people. I think that's right, although I think such criteria will be based on age and health status, rather than on "productivity." A productivity-based valuation model strikes me as sufficiently repugnant that it will never happen in the US. However, that doesn't mean there aren't people on the right who believe it can happen. If they truly believe it, then they are not lying. They are predicting.

Ah, I see. Plausible deniability.

 

[johnny karate]

I think that the design of the grandfather clause actually speaks to Johnny's point about deceit. It shows a well thought out intention to deceive.

No, it doesn't.

Still waiting for you to prove Obama lied.

 

[Unabogie]

How does the grandfathering smooth over the transition? As soon as any substantive change is made, a plan loses its grandfather status. So, it's not like these plans get to transition slowly over several years, so people can get acclimated without feeling like their health care has been disrupted. In the year that the insurance company determines there is a need to change virtually anything, the plan has to be thrown out completely and replaced with an Obamacare-compliant plan.

No, that's exactly how it's supposed to work. People who have a plan they bought in 2013 would not need to become compliant due to any regulation in the ACA. The since most people only keep these sorts of plans for one or two years (because they get a new job or the ACA makes buying a better one a good deal), they would naturally choose to leave behind the crappy plan and get a better one. The purpose of this was a concession to the concerns you're raising here. What they didn't expect was that insurers, knowing that changing a plan would remove its grandfather protection, offered plans that made sense if a person could only keep it for a year. Hence, very cheap plans with minimal coverage. Or, they made changes on purpose to remove the grandfathered status so they could move people into pricier plans to make more money. This doesn't make the grandfather clause part of some nefarious scheme. It means that it didn't manage to cover everyone and catch all the loopholes. Sadly, a full 1% of the US population found out they'd have a problem.

The rest of the population -- 99% of everyone -- gets to enjoy far better plans than they had before with all of the new protections Obamacare affords us.

 

[TheSapient]

However, that doesn't mean there aren't people on the right who believe it can happen. If they truly believe it, then they are not lying. They are predicting.

And this is why the discussion isn't going anywhere. Most of us seem to be of the opinion that the Republican lies on this topic have been worse, because of their magnitude and distance from accuracy. You say that Republicans are not lying at all, because they honestly believe they will be called before a panel, where they will have to justify their productivity level in order to receive healthcare.

Maybe you should not be worried that Democratic lies beat out those of the GOP. Maybe your concern should be that lies from Democrats are far more accurate than the honest beliefs of Republicans.

I will point out that your defense of death panels makes little sense. Medicare predates the ACA. If the existence of Medicare necessitated the creation of death panels, where are they? And what does that have to do with the ACA?

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

The rest of the population -- 99% of everyone -- gets to enjoy far better plans than they had before with all of the new protections Obamacare affords us.

Better is a rather subjective word, especially when you include the cost of something along with that something. I suppose Obama would think that a Ferrari is better than my Honda CR-V, but I don't think so if I have to buy it and maintain it myself. It's also not too useful for driving the kids' carpool in the snow.

By the way, your 1% number is a few percentage points low. And that's before the mess which will ensue if and when Obama lets the employer mandate kick in (as he was legally required to do this year).