Lie of the Year: 'A government takeover of health care'

• Bigdogg

  Very interesting to see how the political strategist operate. Reminds me of the late 1930 in Germany. The bigger the lie the more you can fool people.
  
  
  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Just because something isn't overt and obvious, does not mean it's untrue.
  
  There are provisions of this bill that we simply won't know the true and long-term effect, until it starts happening.
  
  Some folks on here have already posted about big increases in employee costs of health care that are directly related to the bill that was passed.
  
  Hopefully, the Supreme Court ends up throwing out the entire piece of trash when it gets the case. If it doesn't, we'll find out the real consequences of this bill's passage...and I'd prefer to be safe than sorry.
• jhay78

  

  Let's assume it wasn't really a "government takeover"-
  
  Then Congress should've spent time reading the bill, and debating the merits of certain points in it. Instead, they rushed and scrambled and did everything they could (while they had a majority in both Houses along with the presidency) to pass it and pop champagne and celebrate like they just won the Super Bowl.
  
  Why the rush if it's not really a government takeover?
• Bigdogg

  Writerbuckeye;608155 wrote:Just because something isn't overt and obvious, does not mean it's untrue.
  
  There are provisions of this bill that we simply won't know the true and long-term effect, until it starts happening.
  
  Some folks on here have already posted about big increases in employee costs of health care that are directly related to the bill that was passed.
  
  Hopefully, the Supreme Court ends up throwing out the entire piece of trash when it gets the case. If it doesn't, we'll find out the real consequences of this bill's passage...and I'd prefer to be safe than sorry.

  
  If the Supreme court throws it out there will be some people on both sides of the issue jumping for joy. If the provision requiring everyone to have insurance gets thrown out, then Social Security will also be in question. Then it will get really interesting.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Bigdogg;607987 wrote:Very interesting to see how the political strategist operate. Reminds me of the late 1930 in Germany. The bigger the lie the more you can fool people.
  
  
  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/

  
  I would agree somewhat that the notion of government takeover was a lie and it was a brilliant strategy by the GOP. It lead and dominated the discussion, catching everyone in the administration offguard.
  
  However, comparing it to Germany in the 1930s? That's a stretch.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  It's not a stretch at all, ptown. Liberals have overtly been calling Republicans Nazis (or comparing them to Nazis) for quite a while now. It's almost a standard part of their playbook.
• Bigdogg

  Writerbuckeye;608257 wrote:It's not a stretch at all, ptown. Liberals have overtly been calling Republicans Nazis (or comparing them to Nazis) for quite a while now. It's almost a standard part of their playbook.

  
  Nice try but wrong again. I never compared it to the Nazis. I compared it to that particular point in time when propaganda was used very effectively. I am not saying the results will be the same. Your the one using the standard playbook. That's all you have been doing on here for the past year.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Not a government takeover, eh?? Hmmm....let's see:
  
  1. Each and every breathing legal American is mandated to purchase a product or face a penalty. Well...hmmm...penalty. Weird word. When the AG's lawyers got ahold of the law, it morphed into a tax. During the lubrication process prior to voting, Obaman/Reid/Pelosi swore to Americans that it wasn't a tax. Which group is lying: the ones in front of a judge or the ones on TV selling this law? But I digress.
  
  2. If it wasn't a takeover of the industry, then why did they need nearly 2000 pages to define what it is?
  
  3. If it wasn't a takeover, why are health care providers restricted in what products they can sell?
  
  4. If it wasn't a takeover, why are there mandates for insurance companies to insure people 1 day short of their 27th birthday on mommy or daddy's insurance plan?
  
  The article proudly boasts that ObamaKare is not a takeover of the industry, then proceeds to name all of the mandates, restrictions, penalties and regulations that it requires. The only thing that doesn't make it a takeover is that private carriers are allowed to stay in business. If they all keep bleeding money and losing contributors, then it's only a matter of time.
• Bigdogg

  BGFalcons82;608273 wrote:Not a government takeover, eh?? Hmmm....let's see:
  
  1. Each and every breathing legal American is mandated to purchase a product or face a penalty. Well...hmmm...penalty. Weird word. When the AG's lawyers got ahold of the law, it morphed into a tax. During the lubrication process prior to voting, Obaman/Reid/Pelosi swore to Americans that it wasn't a tax. Which group is lying: the ones in front of a judge or the ones on TV selling this law? But I digress.
  
  2. If it wasn't a takeover of the industry, then why did they need nearly 2000 pages to define what it is?
  
  3. If it wasn't a takeover, why are health care providers restricted in what products they can sell?
  
  4. If it wasn't a takeover, why are there mandates for insurance companies to insure people 1 day short of their 27th birthday on mommy or daddy's insurance plan?
  
  The article proudly boasts that ObamaKare is not a takeover of the industry, then proceeds to name all of the mandates, restrictions, penalties and regulations that it requires. The only thing that doesn't make it a takeover is that private carriers are allowed to stay in business. If they all keep bleeding money and losing contributors, then it's only a matter of time.

  
  You would not know what a "Government takeover" was if it hit you on your ass.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Bigdogg;607987 wrote:Very interesting to see how the political strategist operate. Reminds me of the late 1930 in Germany. The bigger the lie the more you can fool people.

  Bigdogg;608274 wrote:Nice try but wrong again. I never compared it to the Nazis. I compared it to that particular point in time when propaganda was used very effectively. I am not saying the results will be the same. Your the one using the standard playbook. That's all you have been doing on here for the past year.

  
  Who the hell do you think used the propaganda during the 1930's in Germany? It was the freakin Nazi's.
  
  Then you try and backpeddle saying that you were not comparing it to the Nazi's??? hahahha!!!!
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I also like how you don't even attempt to address the points that BG made, but you quoted them and then said he/she wouldn't know what they were talking about.
• Belly35

  

  Obama list of those waivered from Obamacare.
  
  Obamacare applies to everyone .... You Lie
  
  
  
  
• BGFalcons82

  

  CenterBHSFan;608290 wrote:I also like how you don't even attempt to address the points that BG made, but you quoted them and then said he wouldn't know what they were talking about.

  
  Thanks, Center. I fixed your query as well (in bold).
  
  If hounddogg had read the entire post, he might have learned something at the end. But it's fun to hear the yapping sometimes....that way I know a nerve was struck successfully.
• BoatShoes

  jhay78;608156 wrote:Let's assume it wasn't really a "government takeover"-
  
  Then Congress should've spent time reading the bill, and debating the merits of certain points in it. Instead, they rushed and scrambled and did everything they could (while they had a majority in both Houses along with the presidency) to pass it and pop champagne and celebrate like they just won the Super Bowl.
  
  Why the rush if it's not really a government takeover?

  
  Pelosi and the house rushed it through but Baucus, the Senate and the the President did anything but the overall bill through. In fact, they wasted so much time trying to get free market loving republicans to agree to a bill that would guarantee that millions had to participate in the private health insurance market if they could afford to and purchase from anyway where in the country in a regulated market who really would rather just label the bill socialism and a government takeover.
  
  What they're rushing through now is things like the START treaty because they gave unreasonable people a chance to demagogue a moderate bill.
  
  Also, it does not follow that the bill would automatically be a government "takeover" even if they did rush it through and this attempted point of yours by all accounts is just unsound.
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;608273 wrote:Not a government takeover, eh?? Hmmm....let's see:
  
  1. Each and every breathing legal American is mandated to purchase a product or face a penalty. Well...hmmm...penalty. Weird word. When the AG's lawyers got ahold of the law, it morphed into a tax. During the lubrication process prior to voting, Obaman/Reid/Pelosi swore to Americans that it wasn't a tax. Which group is lying: the ones in front of a judge or the ones on TV selling this law? But I digress.
  
  2. If it wasn't a takeover of the industry, then why did they need nearly 2000 pages to define what it is?
  
  3. If it wasn't a takeover, why are health care providers restricted in what products they can sell?
  
  4. If it wasn't a takeover, why are there mandates for insurance companies to insure people 1 day short of their 27th birthday on mommy or daddy's insurance plan?
  
  The article proudly boasts that ObamaKare is not a takeover of the industry, then proceeds to name all of the mandates, restrictions, penalties and regulations that it requires. The only thing that doesn't make it a takeover is that private carriers are allowed to stay in business. If they all keep bleeding money and losing contributors, then it's only a matter of time.

  
  
  As to point one; Even if Congress is mandating a purchase of health insurance this does not follow that government is taking over health care. In fact, the opposite is true. It is mandating that private health insurers get the money of consumers who can buy insurance. This, if anything, is a reaffirmation of private health insurance and trying to make it work by eliminating the free-rider problem. But again, it's easier to just make a sign and yell socialism because deep down we believe Barack to be a socialist when this really isn't true at all as his staunch liberal dream weavers are finding out with a bitter taste in their mouth
  
  As to your third point, the government passes laws that places restrictions on products that in away that doesn't amount to a government all the time. A mere restriction on products alone doesn't amount to a government takeover as plenty of products have been restricted for medicinal use by the government for several years.
  
  As to your second point, the number of page numbers has nothing to do with this bill being erroneous. In fact, a reasonable and fair minded Conservative FFT has weighed in on why the page number issue is in fact a non-issue in the past. So, perhaps defer to him. As it is just another talking point to deride the bill with a straw man argument.
  
  As to your forth point, Again, not a government takeover as they go on the rolls of private insurance companies. It is another attempt ameliorating the free-rider problem and the expensiveness of individual managed care insurance not available until 2014 when more provisions in the bill become available to the public
  
  You're concern is about the companies bleeding money and yet you and yours are taking the court the key provision that is sought to prevent this from happening; the personal responsibility provision; the requirement that healthy people don't push their cause onto others or else face a penalty to counter that cost. When Massachusetts mandated its citizens start buying insurance along with forcing insurance companies to insure people with pre-existing conditions, premiums went down 40%. Your concerns are unfounded but perhaps you should go buy a bag of gold, first aid kit and survivor seeds and go build a bunker in the woods and await the coming zombie apocalypse when the government infects everyone with the T virus from Resident Evil.
• jhay78

  

  jhay78;608156 wrote: Why the rush if it's not really a government takeover?

  BoatShoes;608345 wrote:Pelosi and the house rushed it through but Baucus, the Senate and the the President did anything but the overall bill through. In fact, they wasted so much time trying to get free market loving republicans to agree to a bill that would guarantee that millions had to participate in the private health insurance market if they could afford to and purchase from anyway where in the country in a regulated market who really would rather just label the bill socialism and a government takeover.
  
  What they're rushing through now is things like the START treaty because they gave unreasonable people a chance to demagogue a moderate bill.
  
  Also, it does not follow that the bill would automatically be a government "takeover" even if they did rush it through and this attempted point of yours by all accounts is just unsound.

  
  My "point" wasn't really a point- it was a question. There are several points made by BGFalcons above that show the bill leans towards "takeover". Sure the Republicans used the phraseology to their political advantage, but that doesn't eliminate the shadiness of the bill.
  
  Maybe it's not a strict takeover, but more like a prequel to a takeover, where private insurers get weighed down with all the crap and then when they go belly-up, the public option kicks in, and then the real takeover happens to save us all.
• BGFalcons82

  

  jhay78;608363 wrote:Maybe it's not a strict takeover, but more like a prequel to a takeover, where private insurers get weighed down with all the crap and then when they go belly-up, the public option kicks in, and then the real takeover happens to save us all.

  
  Truth cannot be denied. Thanks, jhay. I'll get back to Boat in a while...gotta go shop til I drop!! LOL
  
  Ameliorating....gotta look that one up. I remember when profs used to use unknown words to make themselves seem like they know it all. I'm thinking that's not the case here
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Oh big doggie...just because government doesn't cash the check at the end of the process, does NOT mean they aren't taking it over. If they are pulling the strings and dictating the terms...it sure sounds like, at least the beginnings of, a takeover to me.
  
  Fact is, the are setting the boundaries and guidelines by which a private company is supposed to operate -- and then threatening individuals with a penalty if the fail to participate.
  
  If you can't see that those two things are major issues of CONTROL, then I don't know what to tell you.
• believer

  

  jhay78;608363 wrote:My "point" wasn't really a point- it was a question. There are several points made by BGFalcons above that show the bill leans towards "takeover". Sure the Republicans used the phraseology to their political advantage, but that doesn't eliminate the shadiness of the bill.
  
  Maybe it's not a strict takeover, but more like a prequel to a takeover, where private insurers get weighed down with all the crap and then when they go belly-up, the public option kicks in, and then the real takeover happens to save us all.

  The beginnings of single-payer government-controlled health care without a doubt. Insurance companies and private industries that offer health insurance as part of their employee benefit packages are already scrambling to adjust. Thanks to ObamaKare my insurance went up 8% for 2011 and I'm one of the lucky ones. I'm hearing horror stories of rates going up 20-30% in some cases.
  
  PLUS our insurance carrier is now implementing a "marriage penalty" for working spouses whose employers offer at least partially paid health insurance at a rate of $175 per month. In other words, if my wife works as a part-time sales clerk at a retail outlet, for example, and her company offers at least partially paid health insurance and she declines that coverage in lieu of my own health care program, I get penalized for it. She MUST buy her employer's health care plan and claim it as her primary provider even if her coverage is more costly and less comprehensive. Basically they are forcing working spouses to cover themselves or quit their jobs. That's nothing short of BULLSHIT.
  
  And please don't tell me this isn't tied to ObamaKare. It absolutely is. Insurance companies are finding creative ways to cover the additional cost of insuring our 26 year old "children" for example.
  
  This is just the beginning folks. And it's all by design. The plan is to "encourage" employers to WANT single-payer insurance by forcing insurance companies by hook or crook to increase employee premiums on existing private plans to the point that Americans will beg for single-payer government-controlled health care.
  
  Very slick.
• Bigdogg

  BoatShoes;608359 wrote:As to point one; Even if Congress is mandating a purchase of health insurance this does not follow that government is taking over health care. In fact, the opposite is true. It is mandating that private health insurers get the money of consumers who can buy insurance. This, if anything, is a reaffirmation of private health insurance and trying to make it work by eliminating the free-rider problem. But again, it's easier to just make a sign and yell socialism because deep down we believe Barack to be a socialist when this really isn't true at all as his staunch liberal dream weavers are finding out with a bitter taste in their mouth
  
  As to your third point, the government passes laws that places restrictions on products that in away that doesn't amount to a government all the time. A mere restriction on products alone doesn't amount to a government takeover as plenty of products have been restricted for medicinal use by the government for several years.
  
  As to your second point, the number of page numbers has nothing to do with this bill being erroneous. In fact, a reasonable and fair minded Conservative FFT has weighed in on why the page number issue is in fact a non-issue in the past. So, perhaps defer to him. As it is just another talking point to deride the bill with a straw man argument.
  
  As to your forth point, Again, not a government takeover as they go on the rolls of private insurance companies. It is another attempt ameliorating the free-rider problem and the expensiveness of individual managed care insurance not available until 2014 when more provisions in the bill become available to the public
  
  You're concern is about the companies bleeding money and yet you and yours are taking the court the key provision that is sought to prevent this from happening; the personal responsibility provision; the requirement that healthy people don't push their cause onto others or else face a penalty to counter that cost. When Massachusetts mandated its citizens start buying insurance along with forcing insurance companies to insure people with pre-existing conditions, premiums went down 40%. Your concerns are unfounded but perhaps you should go buy a bag of gold, first aid kit and survivor seeds and go build a bunker in the woods and await the coming zombie apocalypse when the government infects everyone with the T virus from Resident Evil.

  
  Great post.
• HitsRus

  

  but perhaps you should go buy a bag of gold, first aid kit and survivor seeds and go build a bunker in the woods and await the coming zombie apocalypse when the government infects everyone with the T virus from Resident Evil.but perhaps you should go buy a bag of gold, first aid kit and survivor seeds and go build a bunker in the woods and await the coming zombie apocalypse when the government infects everyone with the T virus from Resident Evil.

  Never argue with a stupid person. First they'll drag you down to their level

  I guess I should just refrain from comment.
• stlouiedipalma

  Odd, isn't it, that those insurance administrators (who really DO tell you who can treat you and what they can treat you for) haven't lost any customers and this is considered to be a government takeover.
  
  A question for all of you:
  
  If "ObamaKare" is thrown out completely by the Supreme Court, do you think all of those increased insurance premiums (so closely tied to the government takeover of health care) will come down anytime soon? Would you be willing to bet that they would continue to go up?
• BoatShoes

  HitsRus;608550 wrote:I guess I should just refrain from comment.

  A clever, girl. That is fine. I will wallow down here by myself and look up to your superior grasp of reason and moral fortitude.
• Little Danny

  

  Biggest Lie of the Year??? What about Unemployment Not Going over 8% or all these "Shovel Ready Jobs"?
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Little Danny;608712 wrote:Biggest Lie of the Year??? What about Unemployment Not Going over 8% or all these "Shovel Ready Jobs"?

  
  "Recovery summer"
  Yeah, the administration on the economy had some good ones.
  Although, I wouldn't call them lies, just awfully, awfully wrong.