Obama's "Uninsured Americans" Lie

BeAChooser

Banned
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
11,716
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gFOIz6dJk4Davj6bBXt2_59cHEhQD995T80O0

July 1, 2009

The health care changes that Obama called for Wednesday would reshape the nation's medical landscape. He says he wants to cover nearly 50 million uninsured Americans, to persuade doctors to stress quality over quantity of care, to squeeze billions of dollars from spending.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090716/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul_81

July 15, 2009

... snip ...

Obama met with Republicans at the White House in search of an elusive bipartisan compromise on his call to expand coverage to the nearly 50 million uninsured Americans

Why do Obama and democrats keep regurgitating this obvious lie about the number of uninsured Americans? Have they no shame?

Granted, the Census Bureau report “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005,” placed the number of uninsured people living in the US at 46.6 million ... and there probably are more now.

But that same census report estimated there were 9.5 million people in the US who were not citizens and there are probably more of them now too. So why don't Obama and democrats be honest and say there are 37 million uninsured Americans?

And if truth be told, the Census figure was probably an underestimate of the number of illegal aliens back in 2005. According to http://www.bearstearns.com/bscportal/pdfs/underground.pdf, in 2004, CNN reported that as many 20 million people are living in the US illegally. Time magazine in 2004 said there were 15 million illegals. In 2003, Georgia Senator Sam Zamarripa, a member of MALDEF ... the most influential hispanic organization in the US and an organization which advocates open borders and free college tuition of illegals) stated there were 20 million illegal aliens. And an independent study from 2005 by Bear Stearns estimated the number was between 18-20 million. And that number has probably gone up since 2005.

So wouldn't a more honest figure for the number of Americans without health insurance be somewhere between 27 and 31 million? Why don't Obama and the democrats tell the truth and cite that number instead? Why lie?

And democrats have gone a step further in their claims. They've claimed that 40-50 million *Americans* can't "afford" health insurance. But according to the same 2005 census report there were 8.3 million uninsured people who made between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who made more than $75,000 a year. That’s roughly 17 million people who ought to have been able to “afford” health insurance because they made substantially more than the median household income of $46,326.

So why don't Obama and the democrats be honest in their presentation and say that the number of Americans who cannot afford health insurance is somewhere between 10 and 14 million? Why do they continue to lie and claim that number is 45 or even 50 million?

And truth be told, many of the people who make less than the median household income could afford health insurance. The truth is that many of them are voluntarily uninsured. So probably the number of Americans who can afford health insurance is even less than 10 to 14 million.

But even that's not where the lie ends. The Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal group, puts the number of uninsured Americans who make less than $50,000 and do not qualify for current government health programs at between 8.2 and 13.9 million (http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070718153509.aspx ). The reason for the spread is that the 8.2 million figure only includes those uninsured for more than 2 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 45 percent of uninsured people will be uninsured for less than 4 months.

So perhaps if democrats were really being honest with the public, they'd admit that only about 5 to 7 million Americans are chronically uninsured and in need of help. But they don't. They go on repeating the lie that 45 million (and now it is 50 million) Americans are uninsured and need help so they can push through a massive socialization of the American economy.

And there is more. The CBO also estimates that 15% of the uninsured are eligible for help but don't seek it out. Are any of those 5 to 7 million chronically uninsured Americans in that category? Perhaps most of them? If so, then the democrat claim is nearly 100% LIE.

But then lies are all we've come to expect from Obama and the democrats.
 
So you don't actually have a reliable figure that refutes the 50 million?

Granted it would be better that the Whitehouse said how they came up with the "50 million" figure but since you don't have a reliable figure (just a figure which is more a guesstimate) you'll forgive me that given your track record I'll not simple accept your assertion that he is lying about the 50 million.*

And even if the figure was nearer to 40 million than 50 million would it make any at all difference to the actual argument that is being put forward or is the attack on the figure simply a way to try and divert attention away from the actual argument since you can't refute their actual argument?


*Of course we can technically claim that any figure presented would be a lie and I expect that bottom to be scraped clean very quickly in this thread.
 
Last edited:
So you don't actually have a reliable figure that refutes the 50 million?

Darat, I can only shake my head.

You like being lied to, don't you.

Most democrats do.

After all, it's become the party of lies.

:D
 
I really don't like to be lied to so that must mean I'm not a democrat!

You got something right.
 
Darat, I can only shake my head.

You like being lied to, don't you.

Most democrats do.

After all, it's become the party of lies.

:D

You do know that there is no possible way Darat could be a member of the Democratic party right?
 
http://reason.tv/video/show/get-some

a video on the reality of the situation...

according to the video a John Hopkins University professor estimates that about 45% of the uninsured in America could get health insurance either A) because they can afford it but don't buy it or B) they are already eligible for a government program

The flaw in the study is that it looks only at income levels and not at what expenses from the family budget that could be shed to afford health insurance if the family really wanted health insurance.
 
If there are 300 million Americans and unemployment is approaching 10%, we have 30 million right there with no coverage.

Most minimum-wage workers, and I have no clear numbers on how many of those there are, have no employer-provided health insurance. And there is no way in hell that a minimum wage worker is going to be able to save enough money to pay a thousand or so a month for insurance. That's probably another 10-20% of the population.

Then there are the people who simply cannot get health insurance no matter how much money they have because of pre-existing conditions or are dropped from their insurance programs because they have exceded some life-time cap.

Go rant someplace where people are less aware of the reality out opn the street.
 
Last edited:
If there are 300 million Americans and unemployment is approaching 10%, we have 30 million right there with no coverage.

Most minimum-wage workers, and I have no clear numbers on how many of those there are, have no employer-provided health insurance. And there is no way in hell that a minimum wage worker is going to be able to save enough money to pay a thousand or so a month for insurance. That's probably another 10-20% of the population.

Then there are the people who simply cannot get health insurance no matter how much money they have because of pre-existing conditions or are dropped from their insurance programs because they have exceded some klife-time cap.

Go rant someplace where people are less aware of the reality out opn the street.

Not all Americans are working age adults.
 
Is it true that his universal healthcare program in one way or another indirectly or directly endorses euthanasia in some cases or at least in some cases allows the government to decide that certain lives are "not worth saving"?


INRM
 
Yes...Obama is perpetuating a lie.

""The 47 million Americans that are without health insurance today, a very large portion of them are healthy young Americans who simply choose not to" sign up for it..."

John McCain at a healthcare forum in California in February of '08.

It isn't 50 million its only 47 (or it was, according to McCain last year).

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-33926086_ITM

EDTA:

I note this article which asserts back in 2007 that the number of unemployed is 47 milliion...Bush, responding to the report, doesn't question the number (at least not in this report of Bush's reaction) but emphasizes what progress he thinks has been made...

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/80897.php

So, clearly Bush was trying to help the stupid, lying democrats by not immediately pointing out that the number of uninsured was wrong.
 
Last edited:
So that can actually put the uninsured number even higher, since, if thew parents of a child can't get insurance, that leaves the child out in the cold, too.
No, because many children will be covered by S-CHIP programs.

In truth, it's silly to just look at those Insured uninsured now. but look at how many have covereage by the state/govenrment and how many have private insurance.
 
So that can actually put the uninsured number even higher, since, if thew parents of a child can't get insurance, that leaves the child out in the cold, too.

The 47 million number would be men women and children, working or otherwise without health insurance for whatever reason.

The 10% unemployment rate would be 10% of the X adult working population which is probably somewhere between 150-200 million people I'd guess. Additionally there are non-working adults who may be on a welfare program and not counted but may not be on a program to provide them with health insurance even though we have a program for them. Someone would have to look that up. So basically, just because you have a job doesn't mean you have health insurance. And just because we have a program for low income people doesn't mean the low income people are taking advantage of it.
 
Last edited:
If there are 300 million Americans and unemployment is approaching 10%, we have 30 million right there with no coverage.

The unemployment rate counts only those people who are seeking employment, which is a much smaller number than the total population of the United States.
 
The 10% unemployment rate would be 10% of the X adult working population which is probably somewhere between 150-200 million people I'd guess. Someone would have to look that up.
Not necessarily. Contract and part time workers are neither unemployed nor necessarily have health insurance through their employer.
 
Is the exact number all that important? Even if it's 30 million, or 20 million, is that acceptable in a modern, civilised, first-world country?

Rolfe.
 
Is the exact number all that important? Even if it's 30 million, or 20 million, is that acceptable in a modern, civilised, first-world country?

Republicans do not consider modern, civilized, first-world countries to be acceptable.

Bring back 17th century barbarism!
 
The 47 million number would be men women and children, working or otherwise without health insurance for whatever reason.

The 10% unemployment rate would be 10% of the X adult working population which is probably somewhere between 150-200 million people I'd guess.

Figuring the number of unemployed adults who, by losing their insurance take two,three, maybe four dependants with them, my figure is still in the ball park.

When a father loses his job, he is not the only person screwed out of insurance.

S-CHIP doesn't get everyone.
 
Is it true that his universal healthcare program in one way or another indirectly or directly endorses euthanasia in some cases or at least in some cases allows the government to decide that certain lives are "not worth saving"?


INRM

No.
 
Is the exact number all that important? Even if it's 30 million, or 20 million, is that acceptable in a modern, civilised, first-world country?

Rolfe.

Yes, it could very well be perfectly acceptable. They could all be deciding to spend their money on other things.
 

Back
Top Bottom