• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Obama's "Uninsured Americans" Lie

I know this has been debunked....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mario-..._b_241925.html

and we know that eventually you won't have the option of private insurance at all because the very premise behind the Obama/Hacker plan is the elimination of the private insurance market. They told the faithful that themselves.

Can I get a link on that?

First of all, do you know who Jacob S. Hacker is? He's co-director of the Center for Health, Economic, and Family Security at U.C. Berkeley; a fellow at the New America Foundation; and the editor of Health at Risk: America's Ailing Health System--and How to Heal It. It's widely acknowledged that Obama's health care plan is based on Hacker's proposals. And here is what Hacker told an audience of the faithful on July 21, 2008:

Someone once said to me, 'This is a Trojan horse for single-payer,' and I said, 'Well, it's not a Trojan horse, right? It's just right there.' I'm telling you, we're going to get there. Over time, slowly, but we'll move away from reliance on employment based health insurance as we should but we'll do it in a way that we're not going to frighten people into thinking they are going to lose their private insurance.

In essence he admitted that the health care plan that Obama has adopted is only a disguised way of forcing the country into becoming a single payer system. Now you can watch him make that statement in this video (at 1:49):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-6...erumserum.com/?p=5660&feature=player_embedded "The Public Plan Deception - It's Not About Choice"

The video also shows Hacker telling an audience, back in January 2008, that

This (BAC - his proposed approach to health insurance) would eliminate, I think, the small group market insurance industry. Right? It's premised on doing so.

That video also has democrat Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (from, where else ... Illinois) saying on April 18, 2009 that she heard a man from the insurance companies argue that

a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single- payer.

She then boasts

My single-payer friends ...

HE WAS RIGHT.

ThE MAN WAS RIGHT.

And that video also shows Obama saying to friendly audiences that not only is he a proponent of single-payer systems but that (in speaking about his plan):

I don't think we are going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process

In short, he's being deceptive about the real agenda when he talks to anyone but the faithful.

So it would appear you know less than you think you know. :D
 
Well, ONE European country which appears to meet your criteria.

Good that they don't turn everyone away then, isn't it?

How many countries are there is Europe? Seriously, what's the point of picking a single country that's a bit on the stingy side (sometimes), and howling that if the USA introduces universal healthcare then that policy will inevitably have to be introduced there? Despite this practice being a definite minority pursuit?

In another thread, you were railing against the idea that "non-citizens" might be allowed to participate in a US universal healthcare system. Could you possibly make up your mind which position you actually hold?

This is unusually irrational, even from you.

Rolfe.
 

Well how about you read just one little part of it.

How about Obama's statement that "if we had done nothing, if you had the same, old budget as opposed to the changes we made in our budget, you'd have a $9.3 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Because of the changes we've made, it's going to be $7.1 trillion."? He then said (see his speech) "Now, that's not good, but it's $2.2 trillion less than it would have been if we had the same policies in place when we came in. ... snip ... And the steps that we've taken so far have reduced federal spending over the next 10 years by $2.2 trillion."

That's completely inaccurate, as I can prove. The March Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projection of Obama's budget (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach...rent+law+assumptions&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us ) stated that the cumulative 10 year deficit "under the current-law assumptions" was $4.4 trillion (see page 11 in the CBO link), not $9.3 trillion as Obama claimed in his press conference speech. The $9.3 trillion figure was actually what the CBO projected the deficit would be with Obama's changes. Thus, contrary to Obama's claim, the cumulative deficit over 10 years, thanks to Obama's budget, is projected by the CBO (that's an independent government agency that is specifically tasked with giving politically independent estimates) to be almost $5 trillion more than "if we had done nothing", not $2.2 trillion less.

So it seems to me this proves quite clearly that either Obama simply doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's lying through his teeth to the public. Either way, how can we trust anything he claims if he's this badly confused or this dishonest?
 
So it seems to me this proves quite clearly that either Obama simply doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's lying through his teeth to the public. Either way, how can we trust anything he claims if he's this badly confused or this dishonest?
Well, this is one case where you are correct. Obama was wrong regarding this point.

Good job. I guess if you claim everything a person says is a lie, you'll be right..... eventually.

Now, if you could have only proven he lied about 46 million people being uninsured... oh yeah, you couldn't...;)
 
Seriously, DA, did you really find it necessary to repost all my comments from a rather long OP just to make that one sentence comment of yours?
The inordinate length of your ramblings was part of my point, yes.

And by the way, what you reposted is basically unreadable because you didn't repost the portions of Obama's speech to which each refers.
Your diatribes are unreadable anyway.

And you are incorrect to label the OP spam. Obama's press conference just happened, is news worthy, and this, as far as I can tell, is the first time the health care portion of the conference has been discussed on this forum.
And yet much of your spam seems to be devoted to whining on about the same old same old.

Also, Obama's statements contained new claims, which if you'd really "skimmed" the OP, you'd know because the one section of the OP that I highlighted in particular regards a completely new (and false) Obama claim. I focused on that again in the post just before yours. But let me repeat it again, just for you:

*****
How about Obama's statement that "if we had done nothing, if you had the same, old budget as opposed to the changes we made in our budget, you'd have a $9.3 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Because of the changes we've made, it's going to be $7.1 trillion."? He then said (see his speech) "Now, that's not good, but it's $2.2 trillion less than it would have been if we had the same policies in place when we came in. ... snip ... And the steps that we've taken so far have reduced federal spending over the next 10 years by $2.2 trillion." That's completely inaccurate, DA.

As I noted in the OP, the March Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projection of Obama's budget (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach...rent+law+assumptions&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us ) stated that the cumulative 10 year deficit "under the current-law assumptions" was $4.4 trillion (see page 11 in the CBO link), not $9.3 trillion as Obama claimed in his press conference speech. The $9.3 trillion figure was actually what the CBO projected the deficit would be with Obama's changes. Thus, contrary to Obama's claim, the cumulative deficit over 10 years, thanks to Obama's budget, is projected by the CBO (that's an independent government agency that is specifically tasked with giving politically independent estimates) to be almost $5 trillion more than "if we had done nothing", not $2.2 trillion less.

So it seems to me this proves quite clearly that either Obama simply doesn't know what he's pontificating about, or he's lying through his teeth to the public. Either way, how can we trust anything he claims if he's this badly confused or this dishonest?

*****

I await your response. :D
Oh, you have found something else to be wrong about. Well done.

Could you save me a little time by just telling me in what way you're being dishonest and deceptive this time? If not, I'm sure one of the other posters will let me know.

Remember to keep it civil, please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady
 
Last edited by a moderator:
First of all, do you know who Jacob S. Hacker is? He's co-director of the Center for Health, Economic, and Family Security at U.C. Berkeley; a fellow at the New America Foundation; and the editor of Health at Risk: America's Ailing Health System--and How to Heal It. It's widely acknowledged that Obama's health care plan is based on Hacker's proposals. And here is what Hacker told an audience of the faithful on July 21, 2008:



In essence he admitted that the health care plan that Obama has adopted is only a disguised way of forcing the country into becoming a single payer system. Now you can watch him make that statement in this video (at 1:49):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-6...erumserum.com/?p=5660&feature=player_embedded "The Public Plan Deception - It's Not About Choice"

The video also shows Hacker telling an audience, back in January 2008, that



That video also has democrat Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (from, where else ... Illinois) saying on April 18, 2009 that she heard a man from the insurance companies argue that



She then boasts



And that video also shows Obama saying to friendly audiences that not only is he a proponent of single-payer systems but that (in speaking about his plan):



In short, he's being deceptive about the real agenda when he talks to anyone but the faithful.

So it would appear you know less than you think you know. :D

Interesting.
I'm having a hard time verifying that "It's widely acknowledged that Obama's health care plan is based on Hacker's proposals.", though.

I did find this:

(an analysis of Obama's plan by Hacker)

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/06/04/obamacare_clearing_away_the_fog.php


Granted, I am not a detached observer. I have talked with Obama and his team, and I’m gratified that the proposal they adopted contains core elements of the proposal I’ve been advocating, “Health Care for America.” Still, I have no affiliation with the Obama campaign, and I have talked with other candidates and officeholders, including, most notably, Edwards.

and...

also have differences with the Obama approach, and I’ll present some in a moment.

and...

Second, Obama has also made clear that he is completely opposed to the huge giveaways for private insurers that are currently being provided by Medicare to entice private plans to enroll Medicare beneficiaries. Whether the private plan option will work well remains to be seen. But if it’s appropriately regulated and placed on a level playing field with the public plan, there is a real potential for healthy competition, rather than a race to the bottom.

So it would seem that Obama is probably aware of the potential for the public plan to out-compete the private in the end, but how it will ultimately pan out is simply up in the air.

In the event that almost everyone does end up wanting to switch to the public option, there's no reason to believe Obama plans on then switching to single payer, even if I, for one, do hope that becomes the option most reflective of "American values" eventually.
 
You know what? I wish you guys would get on with it! The biggest threat to our healthcare is politicians dazzled by the greatness that is Merika, and determined to introduce "market forces" because they've swallowed the mantra that this is the answer to everything and will unarguably lead to efficiency and excellence.

So far, their attempts to do this have been disastrous, resulting in dity wards, MRSA, expensive car parking, phone calls and televisions in hospitals, and big bills lurking in the never-never.

The sooner the USA becomes something rational people might want to emulate, the safer we'll all be!

Rolfe.
 
Everyone remember, here's the system BAC is defending:

Blue Cross Praised Employees Who Dropped Sick Policyholders, Lawmaker Says


"The committee investigation uncovered several rescission practices that one lawmaker called egregious, including targeting every policyholder diagnosed with leukemia, breast cancer and 1,400 other serious illnesses. Such investigations involve scouring the policyholder's original application and years' worth of medical and pharmacy records in search of any discrepancies."


That's what evil looks like, folks. But I'm glad Blue Cross's shareholders were able to buy an extra summer home with the money they saved.
 
You know what? I wish you guys would get on with it! The biggest threat to our healthcare is politicians dazzled by the greatness that is Merika, and determined to introduce "market forces" because they've swallowed the mantra that this is the answer to everything and will unarguably lead to efficiency and excellence.

So far, their attempts to do this have been disastrous, resulting in dity wards, MRSA, expensive car parking, phone calls and televisions in hospitals, and big bills lurking in the never-never.

The sooner the USA becomes something rational people might want to emulate, the safer we'll all be!

Rolfe.
You're blaming us for MRSA? I can walk into any pharmacy in Latin America and buy antibiotics without a prescription. And I imagine that is true in Asia and in Africa. Not saying we haven't contributed but please, don't forget the rest of the world out there. TB is going to come back and bite us and that is almost totally the fault of the third world including Russia.
 
You're blaming us for MRSA?

Not really. I think Rolfe is blaming the British government's attempts at privatisation of the health service for MRSA, and saying that these attempts are at least partly based on politicians being able to point to America as an example of a major Western democracy that has such a system.
 
I'm blaming the government for giving the cleaning contracts for the hospitals to the lowest bidder. At which point, who is all that surprised when MRSA unpacks its suitcase and moves in?

Rolfe.
 
:cool:
I'm really intrigued by this conspiracy theory about Obamacare's "public plan" being a Trojan horse for single payer.
On one hand, I've been sort of distressed watching the proposed healthcare reform measures unfold, because most of the reforms being proposed haven't been addressing some of the largest factors that appear to be inflating healthcare costs, and could even make our situation significantly worse. Obama doesn't seem stupid, so why in the world is he proposing this, of all things.
I've been left feeling vaguely depressed over the whole deal and going "wtf, Obama?"

But, if the unspoken idea is that the small public plan will, by nature of the free market, because of it's efficiency, grow and eclipse the private market over time, then, and only then, does any of this make sense.

And Obama was technically NOT being untruthful when he said "If you like the insurance you have now, you can keep it". Because people are only going to opt for the public plan when and if they decide they're not really so fond of their inflated private prices after all, now that they have another option.

This is perhaps the most uplifting, delightful conspiracy theory I've ever run across. Genius, and glorious.
:D
 
:cool:
I'm really intrigued by this conspiracy theory about Obamacare's "public plan" being a Trojan horse for single payer.
On one hand, I've been sort of distressed watching the proposed healthcare reform measures unfold, because most of the reforms being proposed haven't been addressing some of the largest factors that appear to be inflating healthcare costs, and could even make our situation significantly worse. Obama doesn't seem stupid, so why in the world is he proposing this, of all things.
I've been left feeling vaguely depressed over the whole deal and going "wtf, Obama?"

But, if the unspoken idea is that the small public plan will, by nature of the free market, because of it's efficiency, grow and eclipse the private market over time, then, and only then, does any of this make sense.

And I don't see it as leading to a single payer system nearly as much as I see it as "health insurance reform" (a term Obama used recently) which further enmeshes our health care system with insurance. So, rather than seeing Obama's plan as a way to lead to a single payer system, I think it merely reinforces (and slightly reforms) the insurance system.
 
And I don't see it as leading to a single payer system nearly as much as I see it as "health insurance reform" (a term Obama used recently) which further enmeshes our health care system with insurance. So, rather than seeing Obama's plan as a way to lead to a single payer system, I think it merely reinforces (and slightly reforms) the insurance system.

Did you watch that video?

Or are you in on the conspiracy and playing dumb?
:cool: :p

I want single payer so bad, maybe I should just shut up about this...
lol
 
As a Canadian, I have to admit that I find this whole discussion to be very surreal. The advantages of a system like that in Canada, or England, or France, should be a foregone conclusion. Arguing against them is like arguing that the earth is not round, or that the sky is just a piece of black felt with specks of aluminum foil on it.

It astounds me that the people of the USA have tolerated this horrible abuse for so long, being raped and beaten by a crooked industry. Health care should be a right, plain and simple. The numbers cannot be argued against, the US has the most expensive system in the world, and it is by no means the best. In many areas it is lagging very far behind. The country is hemorrhaging money on this, and all it manages is for them to get sicker and sicker.

I read an interesting point some time ago. Both public healthcare and the private system in the US ration healthcare. In the public system, it is rationed based on need. In the US, it is rationed based on money. I do not think it is hyperbole to say that in the private system they have, the life of a wealthy person is treated as more valuable than the life of a poor person. I would expect that anyone of modern sensibilities would find that notion to be offensive.
 
Last edited:
Did you watch that video?

Or are you in on the conspiracy and playing dumb?
:cool: :p
I've been sworn to silence!

I want single payer so bad, maybe I should just shut up about this...
lol
What's sad is this is probably one of the best opportunities we've had in a while to talk about a single payer system in the U.S., and it looks like it'll be a struggle just to pass this health insurance reform thing.

_________
It astounds me that the people of the USA have tolerated this horrible abuse for so long, being raped and beaten by a crooked industry.

I never realized how much I bought into the system until I watched Sicko. The part about the American who upon moving to France had to fill out a health history form. In it, he lied--not mentioning that he had diabetes. It came out in the face to face interview, and the interviewer couldn't understand why he would try to keep that information secret. He supposed that it meant as a pre-existing condition that his diabetes would not be covered under their national health care plan. Their response was something like, "No, we want to know your medical history in order to give you better care, not to deny you care."

At that moment, I realized that I have always thought like a brainwashed consumer of the insurance system we have.
 
This article was in my Sunday paper today.

Condition Critical

The journalist criticises Obama for not relating more of the horror stories, to try to bring it home to people. Then summarises a few such horror stories, apparently gleaned by emailing friends in New York to ask about their experiences.

Art critic Adam Mendelsohn stitched his own face after being bitten by a dog, because he couldn't afford a trip to casualty. He bought drugs in a pet shop, because "you can get amoxicillin and tetracycline from fish antibiotics". As a freelance writer, insurance is prohibitively expensive for him. "If there's something wrong with you, the first place you go is the internet, not a doctor," he says.

Annie Granatstein, a film producer, had good insurance, but when she suffered chronic back pain following a road accident, her specialist demanded additional payment.

"The day before my operation, when I was on all kinds of medication and didn't know what was going on, he had me sign a form that waived my network benefits and agreed to pay him $6,000," she remembers. When she found out the procedure was actually covered by her policy, she decided to fight. "The surgeon called me at home, on a Sunday, yelling that if he accepted the amount offered by my insurer it was going to put him out of business."

Oliver Helden and his wife Susan were bitten by a rabid dog on holiday in Zimbabwe. They had the first vaccine injection for free before leaving the country, but required a course of seven more each on their return to the US. "Without the full treatment, there's a high chance rabies can be fatal," he says. Each injection cost $350, plus hospital fees. The total bill: $7,000.

After holding fundraising parties at their flat and putting the maximum on their credit cards, they still couldn't pay, so they declared bankruptcy. This is less unusual than it sounds: according to a Harvard University study, two more Americans go bankrupt every minute as a result of medical expenses.

I heard from a couple who were told to drive 100 miles to their primary care clinic when their baby caught pneumonia because it didn't qualify as an emergency; a woman who discovered a cyst on her ovary but can't afford the follow-up scan and must hope that it is benign; a lighting designer whose insurer pays for genetic breast cancer screening, but will double her premium if the test comes back positive; a taxi driver who ruptured his knee playing baseball, but cycled to hospital on one leg because it costs $1,000 to call an ambulance. These are mundane, everyday occurrences.

Phyllis Zolotorow, from Maryland, has spent half her adult life battling the insurance industry on behalf of her son, who was diagnosed with cancer as a child, and her husband, who had a heart attack while uninsured. Considering her struggle, she is remarkably good-humoured, with an incredulous laugh, as if she can't quite fathom what has happened to her.

"None of us can believe it, but that seems to be the way it is," she says. "In this country? In Somalia, maybe, but in the US? It's absolutely disgraceful."

Her son, Craig, has Hodgkin's Lymphoma. He was covered under the insurance she received through her job as a florist, but the policy's lifetime maximum was only $250,000. This lasted a year, after which he became uninsurable. "Who wants him? In a good year, if absolutely nothing goes wrong, his healthcare bill is $35,000." A friendly nurse handles his monthly gamma globulin injections at home, as a favour.

Now that the family's savings have been exhausted and both his parents are unemployed, he qualifies for the government welfare programme, Medicaid. He will start university this autumn knowing that it is almost impossible for him to get a job without losing his health insurance, because employers will be wary of the increased premiums.

His father, Mike, lost his job after a workplace injury and couldn't afford to maintain his health coverage. Two years later, while trying to get fit, he started feeling sick. Phyllis wanted him to go to hospital "but he said, No, I have no insurance, I'm nauseous, it's probably just a stomach virus.'" A week later he suffered a massive heart attack and almost died. It took two painful, hideously expensive years before he qualified for Medicare, during which the Zolotorows incurred debt that they can never pay off.


As I've noted before, yes, it's possible to find horror stories from universal healthcare systems too, of course it is. The US right-wingers revel in finding these (and usually misrepresenting them too). However, these horror stories almost invariably represent someone not getting what they should have got from the system. They should have been given care, but due to a fault in the system, they were treated badly.

In contrast, the US horror stories almost always represent people who didn't have any entitlement to care. The system worked as it should. These people just fell through the cracks. Too bad.

So we criticise the US system because it doesn't even try to cover everyone. The Americans criticise universal healthcare systems when they malfunction and let someone down. At the same time, horror stories from America are often brushed off as being the individual's own fault - too bad you picked the wrong insurance policy, or didn't save enough.

So which is worse? The system that tries to cover every citizen, but sometimes drops the baton, or the system that turns most of its citizens loose to get by on their own resources, which all too often simply can't stretch to the task?

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
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.


The wise family can shed one hell of a lot to get something useful like health insurance. I would predict very few actual situations of the type you hint at.

The problem is they don't shed it. Insurance always has been as statistical thing, so they roll the dice that they won't need it.

Some lose.

Become sob stories.

That the power-hungry capitalize on.




By the way, nobody ever addresses my .sig. If socialized medicine did anything that slowed medical tech growth, it would be a net loser for the population. A 10% slowdown, rather minor, amounts to, after a century, 10 years' lag. Which society would have better overall health? One with free 1999 tech, or current 2009 tech? Careful, millions of lives rest on the answer.


SO on to the .sig. We presume medical tech will not lag under socialized medicine -- the alternative is murderously horrific. SO if it works for medicine, it should work for video games, right? I'll bet fewer homes lack video games than health insurance, even though it runs into the hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars a year.

Therefore the government should take over video game sales, design, development, and so on. This will equal or increase the quality and quantity of games, as well as lower costs.

After all, if it works for useless fluff like medicine, how much more it will work for important stuff like video games.




:dl:
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom