De-de-bunking Madville Times
August 10, 2009
The Madville Times recently posted some “Debunking” of right wing “lies”. Unfortunately, this post is heavy on rhetoric and light on facts. So, let’s do an experiment. Let’s see if we can have an actual productive discussion without CAH resorting to calling people liars.
“Myth 1: Democrats want to kill your grandmother.” Bunk: H.R. 3200 would pay for end-of-life consultations that Medicare doesn’t cover now. No one has to get such consultations, but 75% of seniors say such consultations are important. Plus, they would help save money as seniors would be able to give clear instructions on what care they want in case they are unable to communicate those desires in the hospital. Gee, sounds like increasing patient rights to me.
What gets people upset about this and why they feel like Obamacare is inherently uncaring towards seniors is what we see in the bill starting on page 425:
Such [advanced care planning] consultation shall include the following:
(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.
Meaning, a government yayhoo is gonna visit your grandparent and explain what benefits are covered by their magnanimous government health care plan. Okay… doesn’t sound THAT bad… as long as the care you want is on the pre-approved list, and assuming there is availability for care you want. What else will this “consultation” include?
(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders
The crux of the issue is that YOU lose the ability to choose what care you want. Instead, it will be distributed by government fiat. (More on that later.) That means, that when the care YOU WANT is not available, you will have someone there to explain what IS available. I don’t think it’s inappropriate to express disagreement with such a program.
That said, it is certainly wrong to descend into demogoguery to make one’s point… but the Democrats don’t ever do that.
Moving on…
“Myth 2: The government — i.e., you — will have to pay for abortions.“ I hear Senator John Thune is perpetuating this lie in his written responses to constituent questions (anyone with a such a letter, please scan and forward!). There is no abortion language in the pending legislation—or if there is by the time you read this, it’s likely keester-covering amendments from legislators pandering to the anti-abortion crowd. And you know what? If you have employer-based insurance, there’s an 87% chance you’re already paying for abortions.
Even you, CAH, have to be smart enough to know that there doesn’t HAVE to be any abortion language in the bill in order for abortions to be covered under public or NIE-approved plans. Abortion is still legal in the U.S.
Now, as far as paying for abortions, one solution put forward by opponents of Obamacare is to make it easier for individuals to select their own insurance plans directly from the insurance provider instead of having to be part of a group insurance plan through their employer. Why does that matter? Well, there are mutual funds available that promise not to invest in companies that disagree with a certain set of religious values. So, leave it up to the consumer. Let them do the research, and if they want to purchase insurance from a provider that promises not to pay for an abortion, then let them.
But it is a fact that the government will have to pay for abortions if there is no language in the bill concerning them. You’ve done nothing to “debunk” that “myth.”
“Myth 3: Obama will ban all private health insurance.” I had this lie nailed the moment it came out. Mullen backs me up; PolitiFact shouts “Liar liar pants on fire!”… and John Walker still hasn’t apologized or retracted his lies. Such are the tactics of professed “patriots” who can’t win with the truth.
Okay, let’s see if we can leave the name-calling aside for a second and talk about page 16. You are right that page 16 does not ipso facto ban private insurance… the bill would never ever be passed if it did that. So, instead, what it says is that a private insurer can’t enroll anyone on policies that don’t mesh with standards of the National Insurance Exchange.
What does that mean? It means that your “options”, if you lose your job, are to enroll in the public plan or a government-run, NIE-approved “private” plan. Here is where it should be noted that Obama has already promised to control the premiums that private insurers can charge for insurance. The NIE is how that will be done. Calling that a “private” option is like calling Fannie Mae a “private” corporation. It simply isn’t true.
As much as we’d like to think so, we aren’t the first country to try this. Obamacare isn’t actually all that new. I know you went to Harvard, Cory, but I guess they didn’t teach you about the history of the British Welfare State. You know, the period of British history that they have a picture of when you look up “Welfare State” in the dictionary.
So, here’s what happened. Early in the 20th century, The British instituted a “public” health care option. Amazingly, that didn’t seem to fix anything. In fact, the National Insurance Act of 1911 was supposed to create a budget surplus. Of course, it didn’t… medical costs went up and eventually the government created the National Health Service. Ask your nearest Brit how well that’s worked out. (HINT: Not well.)
“Myth 4: The government can’t possibly run a healthcare program.“ Enemies of health care reform like to make vague accusations of how the government can’t run anything right. They ignore facts like the Veterans Administration’s recognized position as the best health care in America. They ignore the fact that the VA outscores private-sector health care on independent studies of customer satisfaction. They ignore the fact that lots of the folks yelling at the town halls are on Medicare and don’t want to give up their government-run health coverage. They ignore reality.
Firstly, the debate is still out about whether or not veterans’ care is all that great. In fact, it wasn’t that long ago that Bush APOLOGIZED for the sub-par standards at Walter Reed Medical Center (i.e. the place Iraqi war vets go after being wounded by islamofascists.) But hey, don’t take my word for it. Listen to the vets that had to stay there:
ARMY SPECIALIST JEREMY DUNCAN: It wasn’t fit for anyone to live in room like that. weaker immune system. The black mold can do damage to people, the holes in the walls.
TARA MERGENER, CNN REPORTER: Eye opening testimony from a soldier as he describes conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
DUNCAN: I wouldn’t live there even if I had to.
MERGENER: Weeks after a news report exposed problems at Walter Reed, from run down rooms to rats, Congress held its first hearing on the scandal Monday — allowing patients and family members to air their grievances.
ANNETTE MCLEOD, WIFE OF SOLDIER: My life was ripped apart when my husband was injured, but then having to live through the mess that we lived through at Walter Reed has been worse than anything I’ve ever sacrificed in my life.
MERGENER: According to a memo that recently surfaced, the Army knew about substandard conditions for months. The fallout has triggered the resignation of the secretary of the army and the firing of the hospitals top commander.
MAJ. GEN. GEORGE WEIGHTMAN, FMR. COMMANDER, WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER: It is clear mistakes were made and I was in charge. You can not fail one of these soldiers and their families, not one, and we did.
MERGENER: But for many, an admission of failure is not enough.
STAFF SGT. JOHN DANIEL SHANNON: I don’t know how things work, but in combat we don’t get to resign when bullets are flying.
REP JOHN TIERNEY (D) MASSACHUSETTS: There appears to be a pattern here. First deny, then try to cover up this case. There appears to be a pattern here.
MERGENER: The White House is vowing to look into the allegations and find out if similar conditions exist at other facilities.
Where do we get to sign up for that? Oh man, this VA stuff sounds really awesome!
Rep. Tim Bishop got an earfull when he tried to make this argument that the VA is great!
MAN #1: Are you a veteran?
BISHOP: No, I’m not.
MAN #1: Have you ever been there? Have you ever been there as a vet? Okay, well, I have. And if I want to see a doctor, I don’t want to have to wait months. Do you know that?
AUDIENCE: Yeah! (applause)
BISHOP: Sir…
MAN #2: I’ve been there for years and you want to tell me how they run?
BISHOP: Sir, I understand the anger.
MAN #2: I’ll probably die in their hospital, so don’t lecture us that you know that the VA is an efficient medical system. It’s a very difficult system. It’s nothing to be proud of.
BISHOP: Shh! Sir? Sir! I am sorry, but I am proud of the VA.
MAN: Well, I’m not because I have (garbled).
Sounds like the VA hospitals are gonna be so great! Can’t wait until all the hospitals are as efficient and well-maintained as the VA hospitals!
“Myth 5: Unlike private insurance, government bureaucrats will ration care.”
Listen. I’m not sure if they taught you basic economics at Harvard, but here’s a quick lesson.
Quality medical care is a scarce resource. There is not enough supply of quality medical care to meet the needs and wants of every person who wants quality medical care. This means that if you want a routine medical procedure for something that isn’t life-threatening, you have to weigh the inherent monetary cost of the procedure. Sometimes this is offset by an insurance provider, sometimes it’s not. But regardless, quality medical care is not an unlimited resource. That is a fact. And somehow, decisions must be made about whether quality medical resources are used to treat someone’s cancer or removing that boyle on your foot. Prices are what should help do this.
With a given population and a given amount of quality medical care rationing without prices would HAVE to take place by bureaucratic fiat, political favoritism, or random chance. Such is the case of a Canadian town that has a lottery (!) to determine who gets to be the new patient of the local GP. Don’t forget about Oregon where they recently had a lottery to determine who would benefit from state-subsidized insurance.
The FACT is that if patients, insurers, and doctors don’t determine how medical care is rationed (through the instantaneous communication medium of prices), then the bureaucrats will. Unless you’re willing to accede that Obamacare will really be Lotterycare.
Now, given the above arguments, are you still stuck on this silly notion of calling people “liars” who disagree with you? We’ll see…
I won’t call you names… particularly since you lack the courage to put your real anme to your words. But thank you starting your own blog so I don’t have to take your pseudonymous commenters on my blog.
I’m a bit busy this week, but I’ll nte that, right away, your protrayal of Myth #1 (it reamins a myth) represents the deliberate and unconscionable distortion of truth to which opponents of health care reform appear determined to resort. You lose no choice. Nothing is forced on you. No one tells you, “You must choose to write a living will” or “You must accept euthanasia after a certain time or expense level.” Why is it so hard to accept this as simple legislation rather than some tyrannical, Orwellian plot? Is it that hard to accept that a Democrat won the White House? Is it that hard to accept that maybe a majority of Americans believe in using sensible federal policy to fix a big problem like health care?
Oh well. Happy blogging. I hope you’ll turn to truthful discussion over rank propaganda. Build your knowledge, build your trustworthiness, and maybe you’ll build an audience. (And use your real name — why hide behind anonymity? Public discourse is not a role-playing game; it’s real life.)
On the VA: why does your little anecdote (and a pretty vague one from that town hall shouter) outweigh the evidence that the VA outscores private health care in customer satisfaction? Sure, you can find one guy who might rank the VA a 0 on that 100-point ACSI scale… but mathematically, the VA scores above 80, which means I’d be able to go find at least 4 other guys who rank it a perfect 100.
But oh well. You’re apparently treating this as a personal vendetta than a rational discussion of public policy. —sigh—
1. How is what I said a distortion of the truth. It is a fact that the harmless legislation forces (yes, forces) you to choose either the public plan or an NIE-approved “private” plan. Where is the dishonesty in relating what the bill actually says?
2. As far as the VA goes… was it purely anecdotal how the Walter Reed Medical Center was run into the ground? It’s interesting how evil and wrong the VA is when Bush is president, but when Obama is Commander-in-Chief everything is rainbows and sunshine. You’ve also failed to mention the research paper used to generate the VA satisfaction score was published in 2003, based on data from the years previous. I’d very much like to see if that satisfaction has remained consistent, especially since performance before that period was conistently terrible by any account, and I’d also very much like to see how the Iraq war has impacted the satisfaction scores for the VA. The devil’s in the details…
P.S. You delete my response from you blog but then come HERE where no one can see you, and yet you want to talk to ME about courage? That’s rich.
All I need is a real name. You still won’t back your words with your name. That’s exactly what I mean about courage. Bawk bawk bawk. We talk face to face, or not at all.
And give you a chance to default to your ad hominem attacks (which, you’ve already done), I don’t think so.
The Framers used the psudeonym “Publius” when writing the Federalist Papers because they wanted to divorce personal attacks from the ideas being discussed. It shouldn’t matter WHO I am, only the content of my ideas and words.
Can’t you argue ideas rather than personalities? If it’s good enough for the Founding Fathers, why isn’t it good enough for you?