Can Anyone Believe the Dems on ObamaCare?
August 11, 2009 by Cato
Filed under Healthcare, Maryland, Maryland Politics, National, National Politics
A civil disagreement is one thing, but lying to the public day after day does little to enhance the credibility of the Democrats when it comes to ObamaCare. Lying, you say? Absolutely. While the Obama administration, the DNC, the Democrat leadership in Congress, and their lefty acolytes all dance to the tune of “opposition to ‘reform’ is nothing more than an orchestrated conspiracy of the right”, all evidence points in the opposite direction.
POLLS -
Poll after poll shows that a huge majority of Americans don’t want the government messing with their health care. Sure, few of us are totally satisfied, but we still don’t want government screwing up a system that works, no matter how imperfectly.
I’m reminded of a story I was told by a retired Coke executive once told me. Pepsi kept doing these blind tastes test in malls and they kept winning. That was why Coke introduced “New Coke” back in the ‘80’s. It flopped. When they went back and did research, they found that while people may have preferred Pepsi in a blind taste test, these same people didn’t want anyone messing with their Coke. Enter “Coca-Cola Classic” and Coke shot back to number one.
ASTROTURF -
Day after day, Democrats tell us that those horrible people protesting ObamaCare at town hall meetings are “scripted” or are “tools of the right”. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has compared these folk to Nazis and today Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer called them “UN-AMERICAN”.
That’s right, average citizens like you and I (or my parents who attended two meetings hosted by Rep. Frank Kratovil) are UN-AMERICAN. You see, in the world of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Steny Hoyer, expressing your opinion is UN-AMERICAN. Disagreeing with the ruling elite is “DISRUPTIVE”.
Of course, if you support ObamaCare, it’s OK to assault average citizens like you and I (or my parents) …
THUGS -
To express your opinion is UN-AMERICAN. To assault people who oppose ObamaCare is PATRIOTIC. That’s the message, at least in Florida. Thugs from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) showed up at a town hall held by Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL) and proceeded to rough up the folks who showed up in opposition to socialized medicine (check out photo of Randy Arthur above and be glad you don’t live in Castor’s district).
Be even happier that you don’t live in St. Louis, MO:
Another group of SEIU thugs attacked some poor fellow outside of a town hall meeting for Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO). Sure, at least one of these guys was arrested, but the Obama DOJ will probably intervene like they did in the case of the stick wielding thugs in Philly.
Now before my friends on the left get in too much of twist, I’m not claiming that everything done in the name of conservatism is OK, or that every Obama supporter is a mindless union thug. However, we (as a rule) don’t defend criminals. When our crooked congressmen are found out, we demand their resignations. We certainly don’t elect impeached judges (Rep. Alcee Hastings) to Congress or defend guys caught with 90 grand in the freezer.
I’m not even claiming that everything said against ObamaCare is true. I honestly can’t say. However, I don’t call people who disagree with me Nazis. I don’t go to a Frank Kratovil town hall and beat up my buddies Chuck Cook or Jim Ireton just because they support Obama or Kratovil (in all fairness, they don’t act like thugs either).
Here on Delmarva, we’ve been pretty fortunate. Frank Kratovil has handled hostile crowds well. The crowds have been vocal, but not rude. They certainly haven’t been violent.
Perhaps that’s a lesson the rest of the country can learn.
Sphere: Related Content
The right has zero room to accuse the other side of lying to the public GA. You have been lied to by your leaders from the beginning as to what is actually taking place. If you believe this is a Gov’t “takeover” or actually approaches European style “socialized medecine” in any way well, yeah you’ve been duped, to the delight of the RNC.
If ObamaCare passes, it is merely a matter of time before we have a Canadian style system. The problem is, where will we go? Where will the Canadians go? Mexico.
I realize that HCAN has distributed talking points on this. I understand that you probably believe them. Unfortunately, I can’t think of one government program that actually delivered WHAT it promised and did so for even TWICE THE COST that was promised.
So are you in favor of the status quo? Do you feel your insurance premimums are quite reasonable? What about as you age and they keep going up?
“If ObamaCare passes, it is merely a matter of time before we have a Canadian style s”
First of all, do you really want to make a hero of him by calling it “ObamaCare”? Secondly, “it’s only a matter of time” say who? What you think may or may not happen does not a valid arguement make.
It’s only a matter of time before I or someone I know is involed in a car accident. We better all stop driving or riding with anyone. That’s your basic arguement, a hypothetical. I thought you didnt argue hypotheticals?
You are correct that I do not like to argue hypothetical propositions. There is a difference between normative and predicative arguments versus hypothetical questions. If there weren’t, we couldn’t rationally discuss ANY proposed action.
As for my insurance premiums, I don’t believe that they are reasonable. I don’t like my policy. I don’t particularly like my insurance company. However, it is better than not having insurance. I am not aware of anyone on my side of this argument claiming that the system doesn’t need to be improved. We are saying that we currently have the best system in the world and it would not be beneficial handing it over to a group of government bureaucrats to run. I know, you’ll claim that isn’t the case. Sorry. I believe it is and there is ample evidence to back it up. You may even claim that this isn’t step 1 (or 101) towards a single payer plan. Sorry again. Obama has said so. I sat in a forum with Ben Cardin last year where he admitted it.
A single payer system is socialized medicine, pure and simple. You can argue that it isn’t socialized medicine if the government doesn’t own the hospitals or if all the doctors, nurses, et al don’t receive government paychecks, etc. You’re just trying to put lipstick on the pig.
History has shown that when government takes over health care, that care is rationed.
These are predicative based on history and past behavior. I am sorry that you disagree. However, just as a majority of Americans agreed with you last year and voted people like Obama and Kratovil into office, their radical agenda has caused a majority to now be opposed to them and to plans such as this.
What should we do? (Normative) We should attempt to improve the system using market based solutions whenever possible. You see Two, conservatives are not opposed to regulation. They are not opposed to government. We just believe that government should be limited and should only interfere with the market as a last resort. We also do not subscribe to RADICAL solutions like a government takeover of 17% of our economy.
Don’t get greedy. You’ve taken over the banking system. You’ve got two car companies. If your left wing pals were serious about health care reform, they would be talking about REFORM, not a HOSTILE TAKEOVER.
“If your left wing pals were serious about health care reform, they would be talking about REFORM, not a HOSTILE TAKEOVER.”
Then you will be happy to know that the White House, and the President in N.H. yesterday, is now calling it “Insurance Reform,” something we all agree is at least somewhat necessary. Hopefully that will quell they fury and help focus the debate. I think it is a good move and shows that he is listening and not simply pushing head long on his own.
So how do Republicans spin that back against Dems? He is caving, therefore weak? He is losing, so keep fighting and he will quit all together? Just wondering.
You’re kidding me, right? INSURANCE REFORM?
Barack Obama can call it “National Defense”, but it is still a government takeover of the health care industry. The very fact that you are putting this forward shows that your side has lost on this issue. Pass it if you can; lose seats in 2010. Don’t pass it. Americans don’t want government controlled health care and that’s what the Dems are trying to deliver.
So you did chose to spin it that way. What ever reform takes place, and I believe something will, whenever Reps regain control, be it 4, 6, 8 or 10 years at the most, they will most likely undo what ever Dems do anyway. We all know this (or should). It’s always the same, and Obama did it to Bush. But we all know this going in don’t we? It has been and always will be partisan.
I’m not sure about that. IF there was an insurance reform bill (versus any of the current bills), I doubt that Republicans would vote to overturn it, IF they return to power.
They will return to power. The pendulum never stops swinging.
Well, if you’ve got a problem with single payer, then you’re not going to take Medicare when you’re eligible are you?
Will you also be advocating that we completely get rid of that system? I mean, if we’re talking ideological purity here, I would think that Medicare, a single payer government insurance system, would be the FIRST thing on the Republican chopping block.
Good try Chuck, but it’s a RED HERRING!
I am a conservative, not an ideological purist. We do not believe in radical solutions in either direction, we believe in incremental steps. We have Medicare. There is no point in proposing to eliminate it even if I wanted too. I don’t propose eliminating that, Medicaid, Social Security, the VA, or even welfare. I believe that they all need to be reformed, but not radically.
I don’t mean to insult you, but either you are simply being argumentative (albeit civilly) or conservatism is so far removed from your life experience that you simply can’t grasp these notions. I understand liberalism. Liberals aren’t bad people. Most genuinely wish to make the world a better place. Unfortunately, experience has taught us that their solutions typically do not work. They certainly do not work as promised (Medicare being an excellent example).
Our world views are different. For starters, I don’t believe that we (humans) are basically good. This is the inherent flaw of liberal (progressive, statist, socialist) belief. I also don’t believe in rationalism (as Michael Oakeshott used the term). Read Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France. Then re-read it three or four times. If you are going to engage your opponent, you need to understand them.
My radical days are long gone.
Medicare doesn’t work? Elder poverty has been reduced from it’s high in the 60′s of 30% to about 10% now. It does exactly what it is supposed to do: provide coverage for the elderly.
I understand my opponent just fine. I am SURROUNDED by Conservatives in my family, on the Shore, and through co-workers.
Now, that being said, I don’t think this is a red herring at all. Medicare is germane to the discussion. Medicare is a government run single payer system… it is the very ESSENCE of what Conservatism is against. It is a PRIME EXAMPLE of “big government” involvement into the private sector. Do you agree? Therefore, I find the argument against health reform a little bit disingenuous if there is no call for a end to Medicare, or a slow down of it, resulting in it being abolished after the last who have paid into it receive their care
There is also the issue of your claim that it “doesn’t work”. That begs the obvious question: Why aren’t you in favor of getting rid of a program that “doesn’t work”? I mean, if a muti-billion dollar program is FAILING (and, as you stated “Unfortunately, experience has taught us that their solutions typically do not work”), and will, by definition not be able to work… then isn’t it fiscally irresponsible to continue funding it?
This is not me “being argumentative”. This is me trying to understand the cognitive dissonance that exists in the current Conservative movement. And, I’m not, necessarily, directing that at you, personally. I would simply like to know why Conservatives can support Medicare (while calling it a failure) AND be against health care reform on the grounds that it is a “big government power grab”.
You just proved my point Chuck. You are trying to argue that we (conservatives) are against Medicare and that it is such a great program. First, Medicare is BROKE. It is a horribly inefficient program that reimburses doctors at a level below many of their costs. Second, no one except the hardest core “Big L” libertarian is arguing for the dismantling of Medicare. Why? It’s here. We have to deal with it. Promises were made to an entire generation (now two) of people. This goes back to my point in the last reply. You obviously DON”T understand conservatives. Conservatives are REALISTS. We accept the hand dealt to us and move from there.
Politically, what you’re doing is what you SHOULD be doing: Attempting to paint Conservatives as “Centrists” or attempting to paint Conservatism as the “center” in American politics. Unfortunately that’s simply not true. While it may make for good PR and talking points for the right, the polls and last year’s elections simply don’t bear out that view of American politics.
Now, I see you, rather in-artfully, avoided one important thing that I said (in addition, you also avoided my questions). I said:
“I find the argument against health reform a little bit disingenuous if there is no call for a end to Medicare, or a slow down of it, resulting in it being abolished after the last who have paid into it receive their care”
Look at the last part of that sentence…. I EXPLICITLY added a portion that would call for a slow draw down of benefits in Medicare. Everyone currently on it would be grandfathered in, and any new workers would be exempt… from the medicare taxes AND the benefits. Cover everyone who is dependent on it or who have currently paid into it, and then slowly dismantle the system behind them.
SURELY that is something a Conservative who says “Medicare is BROKE. It is a horribly inefficient program that reimburses doctors at a level below many of their costs.” would support, right?
And if not, why not? Those who were promised and paid into the system will get what they were promised, while new workers will neither pay into nor benefit from the system. Over several generations, the program will be gone, as will the inefficiency, and the drain on our tax base. No one is adversely affected, and all promises are upheld. PLUS we get the added benefit of doing away with an inefficient and ineffective system.
Something tells me, though, that you wouldn’t even support that idea, either… even though it’s an extremely moderate proposal and solves both of your problems in one fell swoop.
First of all, I do not portray myself (or conservatives) as centrists. We are conservatives. The problem is that you seem to think that Bushies were conservatives. They weren’t. They aren’t. A centrist (or moderate, if you are using them synonymously) simply has no core philosophy other than Realpolitk. Ultimately, they tend to be of a rationalist bent just like other statists.
Second, you seem to be confusing realism with Realpolitik. Conservatives are realists, as opposed to others on the right and left that strive for some philosophical ideal or utopia.
As for your Medicare question, in all honesty I’m not sure. Ideally, it would be a grand idea to cut back on Medicare as you suggest. Practically, I don’t know if it’s possible or even advisable. What you are talking about is something similar to the Bush proposal to privatize all retirement past a certain birthdate. I was in favor of that.
I would have to see a specific proposal. Remember, you have people paying into Medicare for 40 – 50 years before they are eligible for benefits. You would have to start with – Where do you cut off?
Set a date. Everyone who enters the work force after that point in time doesn’t pay into the system, and is never eligible for those benefits.
Yes, it will take generations to happen… but it fulfills all the promises to those who have paid into it, and less and less money is spent as the years pass, until that number hits zero.
It’s an interesting proposal. If it were part of a true insurance reform package that included real tort reform I’m confident that a lot of conservatives (me included) would support it.
Remember, conservatives aren’t opposed to insurance reform or even health care reform. We’re opposed to a government takeover. One point that isn’t being made by your side on this is that the GOP did nothing while they were in control of Congress and WH. While not persuasive in the ObamaCare debate, it will sway some when they vote next year. Until the GOP decides to be a truly conservative party in Congress (vs. simply pandering to certain elements of the conservative movement) I’m the first to admit they don’t deserve to be the majority party in Congress.
I’ll give the Dems credit for one thing. They are the party of the left and governing that way.