Lie of the Year: 'A government takeover of health care'
-
dwccrew
^^^^^This -
majorspark
No it is not a total take over of health care. Such a takeover as some would suggest is happening would result in a major civil uprising bordering on civil war (yes the OP is correct in that sense). A "total" take over is politically impossible. Most politicians are quite aware of this. They are quite aware that large segments of the US population remain vehemently apposed and suspect to any intrusion by the federal government in this vital part of our lives.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.
But there are some in congress that hope to achieve a total takeover eventually at the federal level incrementally if necessary. Many of them reside in the democrat party. The party who held control of all branches of the federal government and controlled the drafting of this health care legislation.
We should not be surprised if large amounts of the US population are opposed to the health care bill and are highly suspicious of it. We should also not be surprised that the actions of the democrat party to push this bill through as they did played a significant role in last falls elections.
[video=youtube;f3BS4C9el98][/video]
I know Barney Frank does not speak for all on this issue in the democrat party. But at least he has the balls to admit it what he believes. I respect that. It just leads one to wonder how many other politicians that lacked balls to publicly admit the same intentions that had a hand in writing this bill. No doubt there were many that wrote in silence behind the scenes.
It amazes me that some of you have such a distrust of the federal governments intentions when it comes to issues like the patriot act, yet have little or no problem with them getting more involved with your health care. An issue that has arguably for more potential to affect you personally. -
majorspark
Quite true. Nationally we are divided damn near down the middle on this. No matter what happens at the federal level 10's of millions will be highly pissed. 10's of millions will be highly irritated. The precious few that control the reigns of the federal government will be quite happy and they will reward any entity or individual that helps in placing the reigns of power in their hands.Bigdogg;608232 wrote:If the Supreme court throws it out there will be some people on both sides of the issue jumping for joy.
You are comparing apples to oranges. Social Security funds are derived from a direct tax by the government on all working individuals that is placed into a federal government administrated fund. Solely under the federal government's control.Bigdogg;608232 wrote: 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.
If the federal government was by law mandating individuals who previously chose not to invest a portion of their dollars for the needs of their future; retirement, disability, or life insurance in privately held companies your argument would hold some merit. Social Security will not come into question at all concerning any potential decision on this matter. -
I Wear Pants
Conversely Republicans and Conservatives have been calling Democrats Nazi's, Communists, and Stalin like for quite a while as well.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. -
majorspark
How many of you that advocate a public option when it comes to health care would be willing to allow in exchange a private option for Social Security?
How many of us that advocate a private option for Social Security would allow a public option in exchange for a public option for health care?
Most of you know how I interpret the Constitution. I would advocate that either one of these questions I put forth would require a constitutional amendment. In the end of any argument I will always default to what I believe is the intent of the Constitution. No matter what my personal feelings are on the matter. The Constitution is our governing document and will no doubt come up at some point.
But lets say we lay those arguments aside temporarily for the sake of discussion. Like I said I am sure it will come up at some point but just trying to see where some of us are at and with the reality of how things exist today and what your thoughts may be on the following questions. No doubt it would involve a give and take on the "holy grails" of the left and right.
Would you make this exchange? And under what circumstances? -
believer
That's true. Like it or not Social Security - arguably America's largest socialist albatross - is too large a political liability for DC politicians on both sides of the aisle to be used as leverage. If we think the student riots in England were nasty when the Brits decreased government tuition subsidies for example, try telling tens of millions of Americans that their lifetime of SS "investments" are going to be confiscated. The pitfalls of socialism.majorspark;608922 wrote:You are comparing apples to oranges. Social Security funds are derived from a direct tax by the government on all working individuals that is placed into a federal government administrated fund. Solely under the federal government's control.
If the federal government was by law mandating individuals who previously chose not to invest a portion of their dollars for the needs of their future; retirement, disability, or life insurance in privately held companies your argument would hold some merit. Social Security will not come into question at all concerning any potential decision on this matter. -
BoatShoesjhay78;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.
You could say this in regards to any increase in regulation by the People in any sector. In reality, it's just more fear mongering. The fact is, in 2014, barring Antonin Scalia retreating from his position in Gonzales v. Raich in regards to his view of the Commerce Clause (something tells me the honorable judge would be much more comfortable regulating drugs than mandating people be responsible for their own health care and could find a way to distinguish but I digress) then the personal responsibility requirement will be upheld. And, as an aside, the SCOTUS has upheld the regulation of inactivity before in another Commerce Clause case; Wickard v. Filburn. In the case Mr. Filburn was growing excess wheat instead of purchasing it in the market and the Congress was allowed to regulate this type of activity because it substantially affected interstate commerce. But again, you'll never hear that as the talking points never die. They are like the infectious diseases of the internet age.
If it is upheld and enforced, the millions of healthy people skirting their responsibility and passing their costs on to others will be required to purchase private health care plans and pay premiums to these companies and will likely not be using their health care just like they aren't now and beyond that time frame premiums will begin to drop as they did in Massachusetts after their health care reform law was amended to include personal responsibility provision.
In the end, if the conservatives get their way and get the mandate knocked down, and the whole bill doesn't get knocked down, that is when the demise of private health insurance will really come and conservatives will have brought the demise of their own worldview and make all of their worst nightmares a reality. If they had any of the sense they had in the 90's they would be praising this free market solution to universal health care and saluting the congress for using its adequate powers to require american's just adhere to the chief virtue of modern conservatism, personal responsibility. If the mandate gets knocked down and healthy persons continue to pass the buck onto others; these macabre predictions will come true and private insurance will likely come to an end. If the whole bill gets knocked down and nothing is done and the train wreck pace of health care costs continues on its current trend with all of the problems of the current bill and republicans magically think that the federal overreach (which they should decry if they cared anything about internal coherency) into our sovereign state's tort regimes by capping damages and allowing Aetna to cherry pick the healthiest persons from other states in a non-regulated market place is the answer well then again they will write the prescription for single-payer exponentially faster than this moderate, reasonable bill does.
It is like watching the twilight zone; we have a mass movement of people claiming to value personal responsibility moving to challenge a bill in federal court as Unconstitutional that would require people to be personally responsible under the claim that it is "socialism" who did nothing of the sort with regards to bills such as the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 or the No Child Left Behind Act which both gave the federal government much more control over the means of production and were much more in line with the ideals of socialism. These people can say they didn't support those massive government programs either but the proof is in the pudding that there was no major movement to attack these bills in the courts despite exacerbating the move towards federal socialism incredibly more than the much maligned patient protection and affordable care act.
But again this is nothing new. As evidenced by the political bickering over the START treaty, something which everybody, even the fickle American public wants passed, will barely, if at all, achieve ratification. Because one thing has mattered more than reasonable debate, thoughtful compromise or good will toward men, it is that the democratic party and President Obama must fail at any cost.
That guy with the neo-colonialist father who listened to a racist, anti-american, black liberation theologian jeremiah wright for however long, who claimed to find solace hanging out with marxists in undergrad, who's last name is really Saetoro and wasn't born in America, who's never had a real job and got into Harvard law with an affirmative action bump, who's wife secretly wants to spray paint kill whitey on the White House lawn and wasn't proud to be an American until recently; the nerd who tells bad jokes, who hates Jews, wears mom jeans and is actually a muslim and a marxist and wants to bring down American Capitalism and prosperity from the inside cannot succeed.
But, here is what I think is a fair article in the New York Slimes about how the rancor of the health care debate over this moderate bill is steeped in history. I recommend giving it a shot even if you're a tea partier. Perhaps in return I will check out infowars or worldnetdaily.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/business/economy/15leonhardt.html?ref=healthcarereform -
BoatShoesmajorspark;608935 wrote:How many of you that advocate a public option when it comes to health care would be willing to allow in exchange a private option for Social Security?
How many of us that advocate a private option for Social Security would allow a public option in exchange for a public option for health care?
Most of you know how I interpret the Constitution. I would advocate that either one of these questions I put forth would require a constitutional amendment. In the end of any argument I will always default to what I believe is the intent of the Constitution. No matter what my personal feelings are on the matter. The Constitution is our governing document and will no doubt come up at some point.
But lets say we lay those arguments aside temporarily for the sake of discussion. Like I said I am sure it will come up at some point but just trying to see where some of us are at and with the reality of how things exist today and what your thoughts may be on the following questions. No doubt it would involve a give and take on the "holy grails" of the left and right.
Would you make this exchange? And under what circumstances?
I would like such a scenario. Ideally, I would like to see the requirement that private insurers cover any and everybody and that there be 50 state run public options for those type of people that can't find private options to supplement the private insurance industry as I don't think they should force private insurers to cover any and all persons. I'm not quite sure as to how you would alter it but at least in some manner.
As far as privatizing social security; I'd like to see some of a person's check be required to go into individual retirement accounts and perhaps a way to annuitize one's social security benefits in the private market. Nevertheless, I believe that there should always be at least some social safety net free from the volatility of the markets preserved for seniors who can no longer work.
I also think it would be good to inject competition in Medicare and not making it solely a public form of health insurance for seniors and injecting some kind of voucher system in conjunction with the public option.
I also think the government could have a role in capitalizing private-non-profit health insurers so that they may provide additional competition in the health care market place with a non-profit based business model. -
HitsRus
Sorry Boat shoes, I respect you as a poster, but the combination of your post and bigdoggs was to delicious to resist.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.
So, I'll bite...
#1... I don't think you really want to use Massachusetts as an example.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/economy/massachusetts_healthcare_reform.fortune/index.htm
#2 'takeovers' do not always happen in one fell swoop...some time they come in small bites. That is after all the M.O. of the liberals and the Damnocratic Party over the past 70 years, as they continue the expansion of government in our lives. Ha s it been a complete, blatant takeover? Maybe not. But it is serious meddling, that will lead to more tweaking and more meddling leading to more and more control.
Complete takeover?....ask me in about 10 years. A lot of it depends on how successful the resistance is. -
Writerbuckeye
BoatShoes;608958 wrote:I would like such a scenario. Ideally, I would like to see the requirement that private insurers cover any and everybody and that there be 50 state run public options for those type of people that can't find private options to supplement the private insurance industry as I don't think they should force private insurers to cover any and all persons. I'm not quite sure as to how you would alter it but at least in some manner.
As far as privatizing social security; I'd like to see some of a person's check be required to go into individual retirement accounts and perhaps a way to annuitize one's social security benefits in the private market. Nevertheless, I believe that there should always be at least some social safety net free from the volatility of the markets preserved for seniors who can no longer work.
I also think it would be good to inject competition in Medicare and not making it solely a public form of health insurance for seniors and injecting some kind of voucher system in conjunction with the public option.
I also think the government could have a role in capitalizing private-non-profit health insurers so that they may provide additional competition in the health care market place with a non-profit based business model.
You're frightening. You want the government's hand in all these aspects of people's lives and in running private industry. And the US government can't be "capitalizing" anything these days; it's damn near broke, remember. -
QuakerOatsI Wear Pants;608926 wrote:Conversely Republicans and Conservatives have been calling Democrats Nazi's, Communists, and Stalin like for quite a while as well.
If a democrat is a socialist or a marxist or a communist, should we call them a democrat, or should we call them what they are? -
fan_from_texasBigdogg;608232 wrote: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.
I'm a little unclear on this. How will this bring Social Security into question? I haven't followed the health care debate all that closely (mostly because it affects me less than things like energy policy or tax reform), but I haven't heard any of the "experts" take this line. There are superficial comparisons between the health care mandate and SS, but my (admittedly limited) understanding is that there are nuanced differences that make the analogy fail.
It seems to me that if you take issue with those in the right who are arguing a slippery slope about government takeover, they may have reason to take issue with you over arguing a slippery slope about social security.
Of course, like I said, I'm not a health care expert, and I'm open to being corrected on this issue. But it seems to me that throwing out "social security" is a scare tactic for political purposes, not something well grounded in reality. -
I Wear Pants
Shit dude, there are barely any actual Communists in China anymore. I think you should not call them anything other than what they call themselves unless every policy the support is socialist or marxist or communist. Because by your rationale every Democrat is a Marxist and that's just factually inaccurate. It'd be like me calling every or many Republican's Fascist, sure some of them support policies that could fall under that term, but that doesn't make them a Fascist.QuakerOats;609097 wrote:If a democrat is a socialist or a marxist or a communist, should we call them a democrat, or should we call them what they are? -
Writerbuckeye
I'm curious what policies most Republicans support that you would consider fascist.
-
I Wear PantsI said some, not most. But the standard Republican view on abortion could be considered a Fascist policy. You could also make the argument that the blatent nationalism found in some conservatives is similar to what Fascists would support as are the policies supported by them in regards to the internet and privacy (the last two are also shared by many Democrats sadly) Again, let me make this clear, that does not make them a Fascist.
I just hate people saying "well those damned Marxists/fascist/nazi/whatever" when they aren't that. Supporting a policy or even multiple policies that could fall under the umbrella of one of those labels doesn't make you a Nazi or Marxist or any of the other names people throw around about those they don't agree with. -
BoatShoesWriterbuckeye;609074 wrote:You're frightening. You want the government's hand in all these aspects of people's lives and in running private industry. And the US government can't be "capitalizing" anything these days; it's damn near broke, remember.
How can this be true based on your worldview? I have suggested that Medicare and Social Security should be more oriented toward privatization than in their current form. Granted, I've suggested that public options for those who are uninsurable by non-profit and profit driven private health insurers but that seems more akin to medicare for the disabled which we already have but devolved down to the states so as to provide competition amongst these public providers. But, perhaps you're shitting your pants in fear because social security and medicare in their current big government forms. I'm not sure that would predict a reasonable mental state if that is the case but I'm no psychologist. -
Manhattan Buckeye"I'm a little unclear on this. How will this bring Social Security into question?"
It doesn't. The requirement to have health insurance will be the first "tax" (and it is a tax) requirement for someone just to be an American. And it will turn into another social welfare program since we have many people who are worried about where they are getting their next meal, let alone able to save up $$ to purchase health insurance. As we say in Southeastern Ohio, you can't get blood out of a turnip. This is going to be a fiscal nightmare.
SS isn't even paid by many (particularly government employees) - and it isn't levied on many sources of income. Win the lottery - you don't pay SS. Trust fund baby - you don't pay SS. SS is based on earned income. -
Writerbuckeye
Let me amend that. You're frightening and very strange.
Oh...and wrong about whatever you were attempting to say about me. -
fan_from_texasManhattan Buckeye;609209 wrote:"I'm a little unclear on this. How will this bring Social Security into question?"
It doesn't. The requirement to have health insurance will be the first "tax" (and it is a tax) requirement for someone just to be an American. And it will turn into another social welfare program since we have many people who are worried about where they are getting their next meal, let alone able to save up $$ to purchase health insurance. As we say in Southeastern Ohio, you can't get blood out of a turnip. This is going to be a fiscal nightmare.
SS isn't even paid by many (particularly government employees) - and it isn't levied on many sources of income. Win the lottery - you don't pay SS. Trust fund baby - you don't pay SS. SS is based on earned income.
That's what I figured. So basically, the argument that if the health care mandate is overturned, so too will SS, is bogus. It's a way to scare voters and mislead them into supporting one's position, rather than debating the issue on the merits. -
queencitybuckeyefan_from_texas;609329 wrote:That's what I figured. So basically, the argument that if the health care mandate is overturned, so too will SS, is bogus. It's a way to scare voters and mislead them into supporting one's position, rather than debating the issue on the merits.
Yep, a slippery slope argument, when the ground is perfectly flat. -
QuakerOats
What ...... supporting and protecting the innocent unborn is fascist ?? wow.I Wear Pants;609167 wrote:I said some, not most. But the standard Republican view on abortion could be considered a Fascist policy.
I just hate people saying "well those damned Marxists/fascist/nazi/whatever" when they aren't that. Supporting a policy or even multiple policies that could fall under the umbrella of one of those labels doesn't make you a Nazi or Marxist or any of the other names people throw around about those they don't agree with.
As for democrats who call themselves democrats to get elected, but then vote like socialists/marxists, at what point do you draw the line and begin to label them accurately so that a factual debate can be had? After they vote for one socialist/marxist policy, after 2,3 or 4? Or wait until their entire voting record and policy agenda is indistinguishable from what Marx would try to do if he were in congress today? I am just trying to determine where the cutoff is and why the use of accurate adjectives is looked upon with disfavor by the left, I assume trying to hide their real identity. -
CenterBHSFan
Actually, Quaker Oats has a point, like it or not.
I've seen him and others specifically do the same thing to some republican politicians, calling them RINO's. I've also seen these same people state several times that Bush acted like a conservative but spent like a liberal.
Memory. They're nice to have. -
jhay78
QuakerOats;610141 wrote:What ...... supporting and protecting the innocent unborn is fascist ?? wow.
As for democrats who call themselves democrats to get elected, but then vote like socialists/marxists, at what point do you draw the line and begin to label them accurately so that a factual debate can be had? After they vote for one socialist/marxist policy, after 2,3 or 4? Or wait until their entire voting record and policy agenda is indistinguishable from what Marx would try to do if he were in congress today? I am just trying to determine where the cutoff is and why the use of accurate adjectives is looked upon with disfavor by the left, I assume trying to hide their real identity.
+1- That's where I give Bernie Sanders (VT) some credit for calling himself a socialist. Look how he votes in the Senate and how other Dems in the Senate vote, and you'll find there ain't a whole lot of difference. Of course, you can call yourself a socialist and still get elected in Vermont; maybe not so easily in other states. -
cbus4lifeQuakerOats;610141 wrote:What ...... supporting and protecting the innocent unborn is fascist ?? wow.
As for democrats who call themselves democrats to get elected, but then vote like socialists/marxists, at what point do you draw the line and begin to label them accurately so that a factual debate can be had? After they vote for one socialist/marxist policy, after 2,3 or 4? Or wait until their entire voting record and policy agenda is indistinguishable from what Marx would try to do if he were in congress today? I am just trying to determine where the cutoff is and why the use of accurate adjectives is looked upon with disfavor by the left, I assume trying to hide their real identity.
Why do you say "socialists/marxists?"
All Marxists are socialists, but not all socialists are marxists.
I would say that we have some socialists-lite inhabiting Congress, but they aren't necessarily Marxists. One can be a socialist without being a marxist.
So, i'm confused by your phrasing.
Are you trying to say that they are the same thing? Because they are not. While a Marxist is also a socialist, a socialist is not automatically a marxist as well.
Calling someone a socialist and automatically assuming they are a marxist as a result is incorrect. Again, all Marxists are socialists, but not all socialists are Marxists.
President Obama is not a marxist. A sort of socialist, sure, but not a marxist.
Same with some of those in Congress. So, if you're working from the (i believe incorrect) assumption that many democrats in Congress are Marxists, then it is ok to use the "marxist/socialist" tag. But if you're going to call them socialists, which i think to be more accurate, then it is incorrect to automatically apply the "marxist" tag as well because being a socialist does not automatically make one a marxist.
That is where my annoyance comes from.
I have no problem with you applying certain tags like "socialist" to some of those in Congress, but try doing so in a manner that doesn't make it look like you're trying to get as many McCarthyisms into one sentence as is humanly possible. -
Writerbuckeye
I have no doubt Obama's ideal country would lean much closer to socialism than it would capitalism -- but it's probably best to use terms like socialistic when referring to pieces of legislation or programs, as opposed to people. As already noted, there are too many variables at work to label people accurately.