A Second Look Rotating Header Image

House Republicans

A Second Look | Deathers, Shouters, and The Assault on the Truth

via Tackling Myths, Lies About Health Care Reform and Older Americans to Get to the Truth – AARP Bulletin Today.
By: Patricia Barry | Source: AARP Bulletin Today | August 14, 2009

Deathers

It has been a wild and woolly August for President Obama and his herculean task of turning our already overburdened ship of state around toward a more sensible and fair health system. But he has not been entirely clear with the American public about specifics that must be included in the bill and has left it up to Congress to hash out the mechanics of the turnaround. This has opened the door for skepticism. Wild statements of fear have been promulgated from the top and down through the ranks by the insurance lobby, who stand the most to loose by a change in insurance regulations, and the talking points have quickly spread to the bottom where all the radical right-wing extremists shout things like “Obama is a socialist” and “kill him”.

It is important that we pause, take a breath, and think. We must stop spreading myths about health care reform and start disseminating some truth. From the above linked article in the AARP Bulletin, September 2009.

…But this summer something new has entered the political arena—a tsunami of rumors, myths, fear-mongering and misinformation about the proposals that surges around the Internet in nanoseconds. “I’m totally confused about what’s going on,” one reader wrote to the AARP Bulletin. “How do I know who to believe?”

“What we’re seeing is a flood of viral content that distorts the Obama effort to reform health care,” says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, who codirects www.FactCheck.org, a website that examines questionable claims from all sides of the political spectrum.

Since the  White House has not unequivocally itemized the tenants of what health care reform will be, as mentioned before, there has been an opportunity by the right-wing to define the much needed reform in their image. High powered lobby efforts from AHIP and others have spread vitriolic myths and rumors in an effort to stop the whole process. The right-wing, once again, decides to obstruct legislation rather than offer concrete ideas.

This fall will see the merging of two separate bills in the Senate, and a floor vote on the House bill, H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act. One Senate bill called the Affordable Health Choices Act produced by the HELP Committee includes the “public option” that can be defined as “government backed insurance” an option that would compete with private insurance to keep prices low. The other Senate bill which will be finalized soon by the Senate Finance Committee after the return from vacation on September 8th, is not expected to contain a public option. The House bill also contains a public option. It is important that the myths and fear-mongered rumors that have gone viral be compared to the actual language of these bills.

I applaud the AARP for tackling some of these wild myths and rumors, and am especially thankful that they are an organization that has the interests of our elderly and retired community at the core of their advocacy.

AARP has weighed in by debunking some of the myths in a Q & A format:

Q. Will the government take over health care so we end up with socialized medicine?

No. Neither the president nor the congressional committees have suggested anything remotely resembling a government takeover of health care.

Obama has specifically rejected the idea of a “single payer” system, like Canada’s, in which the government insures all citizens. None of the leading proposals in Congress even considers going down this road—a fact that has brought strong protests from some consumer and doctor groups that favor this approach. And although Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., has long called for a “Medicare for All” program, this is not included in proposals from the Senate health committee that he chairs.

Where did this myth come from? Opponents of reform constantly use the term “government-run health care” to disparage the reform proposals, despite the popularity and success of existing government-run programs like Medicare.

What do the proposals say? Obama has proposed setting up a single “public plan”—available only to those without employer insurance—to provide a voluntary alternative to the many private plans that offer individual health insurance.

Q. Will private insurance be outlawed or wither on the vine?

No. Obama and the congressional committees say their objective is to build on the current system—keeping employer-sponsored group insurance and giving more consumer protections to people who are employed by small businesses or buy insurance as individuals.

Where did this myth come from? Currently 177 million people have employer or individual insurance. The issue caught fire after the Lewin Group, a research consulting firm owned by United Health Group, estimated that 119 million of them would switch to a public plan, if everybody were allowed to join it. But the proposals actually exclude those with employer insurance from the public plan.

What do the proposals say? Each of the proposals calls for national or regional heath insurance exchanges that would allow people without employer or public insurance and small employers to choose from a menu of private insurance plans (and a public option, if there is one), with online information to help compare them.

Q. Will the government encourage euthanasia to save costs?

No. This false but scary idea—now surging around the Internet in blogs and e-mails—claims that the House bill would require Medicare beneficiaries to have mandatory classes every five years to decide how to end their lives earlier. Typical e-mails add: “They’re going to push suicide to cut Medicare spending!” All identify page 425 of the bill as their source.

Where did this myth come from? On July 16, Betsy McCaughey, a former Republican lieutenant governor of New York [and a paid spokesperson of a health industry think tank] , appeared on a conservative radio show. Citing page 425, she said: “Congress would make it mandatory … that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner … all to do what’s in society’s best interest.”

On July 23, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, leader of the House Republicans, issued a statement saying: “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law.” On Aug. 7, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin described the proposal as setting up a “death panel.”

What does the proposal say? The clause on page 424 (section 1233) would require Medicare to pay doctors for their time if beneficiaries chose to consult them for information on advance care planning, such as making a living will, appointing a health proxy, and hospice care (already covered by Medicare). Medicare would pay for these sessions only once every five years.

Q. Will Medicare be eliminated or gutted to pay for reform?

No. It’s inconceivable that any lawmaker would commit political suicide by proposing to get rid of Medicare. But the rumor has fast gained ground.

Where did this myth come from? Dick Morris, a political commentator, posted an article on his blog that began: “Obama’s health care proposal is, in effect, the repeal of the Medicare program as we know it.”

What do the proposals say? It’s true they all seek to save billions from Medicare costs—not by cutting benefits, but by setting up new ways to pay doctors more fairly and to reward providers for quality of care instead of (as now) paying them a fee for each separate service; reducing waste and fraud; and reducing preventable hospital readmissions.

Q. Will the government ration care?

No. But the specter of “rationing” is the battle cry of reform opponents. They say people in their 90s, 80s or even 70s will be deemed “too old” for joint replacements and cancer care—and even, in one persistent rumor, that “Obama​care” would deny treatment to people going blind in one eye as long as their other eye still works.

Where did this myth come from? It’s part of the “government takeover” argument, playing on often inaccurate beliefs that countries with national health systems severely ration care. In a widely circulated memo, political consultant Frank Luntz offered Republicans language that he believed would most resonate with Americans to defeat the Democrats’ push for reform. He suggested they say: “In countries with government run healthcare, politicians make your healthcare decisions. They decide if you’ll get the procedure you need … We can’t have that in America.”

What do the proposals say? In fact, they seek to prevent denial of care. Under every proposal, insurance companies would no longer be able to deny coverage on the basis of current health or preexisting medical conditions.

Where to go for the facts on health care reform proposals:

The following websites are run by nonpartisan organizations with no stake in the proposals:

Share

A Second Look: Obama Repeatedly Reminds House GOP Of Their Zero Stimulus Votes

via Obama Repeatedly Reminds House GOP Of Their Zero Stimulus Votes.

In a meeting with House Republicans at the White House Thursday, President Obama reminded the minority that the last time he reached out to them, they reacted with zero votes — twice — for his stimulus package. And then he reminded them again. And again. And again.

This is my same old bitch. The article focuses more on the Republican push-back to President Obama’s threat of reconciliation than on the facts of the matter. We all know that facts have never gotten in the way of a Republican talking point.

Obama reached out to Republicans during the campaigns.

Once in office, and the Republican economic shit storm came crashing down on his head, the

President Obama

President coolly kept his campaign promise and visited Republican leadership to discuss the stimulus in late January.

The meeting was cordial enough but immediately afterward Republicans began a media campaign against the stimulus even though a number of them were in the various committees that drafted each part. The argument that Republicans were shut out of the process is a lame one considering the efforts the Democrats made in appeasing the right.

Earlier that week, Obama quietly urged House Democrats to drop a contentious piece of the stimulus concerning funding of contraceptives and the complied.

On January 18th, President Obama made a highly publicized effort to reach out to Senator John McCain.

From the Washington Post, January 6, 2009, entitled Obama Pitches Stimulus Plan, GOP Asked to Help Design Bill; $300 Billion in Tax Cuts Sought:

Pitching a plan that is expected to include $300 billion in tax cuts, Obama pledged to consult Republican leaders, who until yesterday had been left out of negotiations between the president-elect’s advisers and congressional Democratic staff.

“The monopoly on good ideas does not belong to a single party. If it’s a good idea, we will consider it,” Obama told House and Senate leaders at an hour-long closed-door meeting, according to one attendee.

Here’s my bitch. There are a gazillion articles out there that could have been referenced to accentuate the President’s efforts for bipartisanship, however this article fails to deliver the President’s side of the story. I don’t know if the author of this article ever worked for the Associated Press, but it reeks of their input. The article, true to form for the AP ends on a sour, not uplifting, note and emphasizes the Republican talking point that it’s the President who is being partisan when he had actually worked hard to include their input. Once again the reader gets to leave the article with the foul taste of conservatism in his mouth as they get the last word again.

The last paragraph:

“Fast-tracking a major legislative overhaul such as health care reform or a new national energy tax without the benefit of a full and transparent debate does a disservice to the American people,” said McConnell in a statement. “And it would make it absolutely clear they intend to carry out their plans on a purely partisan basis.”

The author could have added one simple sentence that would take this biased ending and turn it positive for the President. Something like this:

…said McConnell in a statement. “And it would make it absolutely clear they intend to carry out their plans on a purely partisan basis.” A statement which does not jive with President Obama’s largely unrequited past efforts at bipartisanship.

Share

A Second Look | The Republican Road to Recovery: 19 Pages of Talking Points and a Rewrite of History

The Republican Party leadership unveiled it’s counter proposal to Obama’s budget yesterday to sour reviews and little fanfare. The reason for the lack of optimism is the omission of numbers or hard facts such as how much they plan to spend and on what.

GOP Minority Leader John Boehner

GOP Minority Leader John Boehner

If anyone hasn’t read it yet, there’s nothing in it except talking points and anti-Obama hate. There is so much vitriol and pro right-wing propaganda that it is truly one document that is very hard to read. This document is nothing more than a sales promotion and a pander to the right-wing base. The only policy proposal in the whole document is a huge tax cut for the wealthy (Bushonomics).

See what you think. Here is a snippet from page 5 explaining the Republican plan to balance the budget. Most of this section is  right-wing vitriol against the President’s budget, and very little offered to counter the President’s proposal, let alone prove their way is better:

LIMITS THE FEDERAL BUDGET FROM GROWING FASTER THAN FAMILY BUDGETS

THE PRESIDENT’S BUDGET

By any reasonable definition, the Democrat budget spends too much. In the current Fiscal Year, the federal government would spend over $4 trillion or 28.5 percent of the economy—the highest level since World War II. The new budget is fresh off an eight percent increase in nondefense spending from the omnibus—the highest increase since the Carter administration, except immediately following the September 11th attacks—and a $792 billion “stimulus” spending bill. The deficit for the
current Fiscal Year is projected to be upwards of $1.8 trillion, and over the next ten years, the deficit will total $9.3 trillion by conservative estimates. Families simply cannot afford to pay for such levels of government.

First of all, the budget doesn’t belong to the Democrat. The budget is a proposal introduced to Congress by the President of the United States. It is not the Democrat budget.

Secondly, almost all economists agree that an honest effort to recover from this Republican recession will take massive spending. (According to Republican leadership, the spending is too large because the numbers sound too large.) We may or may not be spending more since the end of WWII. I don’t know because I haven’t seen a comparison adjusted for the value of today’s dollars and GDP from that time adjusted to today’s per capita output, which is greater. But from what I’ve read, our economy is hemorrhaging jobs and housing value at a biblical rate and we cannot stop it without a matching effort. From Why the Stimulus is Too Small, The Huffington Post, February 9:

It’s a matter of basic math, says economist Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. The economy is currently losing – annually — $450 billion in housing wealth, $650 billion in consumer spending and $150 billion in commercial real estate value.

“You’re talking about a gap on the order of twelve-hundred-fifty billion dollars, and we’re trying to plug that with four-hundred-something, so we’ve got a long way to go,” Baker says. (The stimulus package of roughly $800 billion doles out spending and tax cuts over two years.)

Galbraith, too, says that demonstrating that the stimulus is too small is a matter of basic math. The $400 billion it will inject into the economy each of the next two years is equal to about two to three percent of GDP, he noted. But the economy is falling at a much faster rate, projected at eight percent a year by the CBO – and that projection, again, doesn’t account for the financial collapse.

The verdict is that the stimulus was too small and the budget can make up some of the shortfall. What is really startling is the Republican plan to turn things around:

REPUBLICAN’S SOLUTION

Instead of recklessly borrowing and spending money on wasteful programs under the guise of “stimulus” and “investments,” Republicans seek to ensure that the federal budget cannot grow faster than families’ ability to pay the bill.In addition to securing our nation’s major entitlements, by enacting common-sense reforms and weeding out waste, fraud, and abuse, Republicans propose to undo the recent reckless and wasteful Democrat spending binge included in the so-called “stimulus” and omnibus bills.

In addition, Republicans would cut overall nondefense spending by reforming or eliminating a host of wasteful programs deemed ineffective by various government entities. And Republicans would fully fund our ongoing commitments overseas while devoting the entirety of any savings from reduced fighting to deficit reduction, rebuilding our military, and funding our commitment to our veterans.

They will construct the federal budget so as to not grow faster than families’ ability to pay the bill. Whose family, mine or Warren Buffet’s? I cannot imagine how they plan to tie in the federal budget with a family’s budget. Remember when Ronald Reagan said that deficits don’t matter? They may not matter to the government which has been operating in the red for generations, but they matter to my family’s budget.

Whenever you hear a Republican saying that they want to reduce wasteful spending, it is Republicanease for cuts in Medicare, subsidized housing, food stamps, welfare, unemployment benefits, infrastructure, and cuts to the budget for all the oversight agencies that keep us healthy and safe.

Don’t let them fool you into thinking that Obama is the only one borrowing money. They don’t want you to remember that the Republicans under Bush grew government faster and bigger than any presidency in history. Bush borrowed every dime to fund two wars and give out sweetheart no-bid, cost-plus contracts to his and VP Cheney’s cronies.

This document doesn’t offer any counterproposal, just more of the same stuff that we voted out last November. (Tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, etc.)

__________________________________________________________________

P.S. Here is a funny but honest montage of the talking heads’ reaction to the Republican  roll-out of the non-budget:

Share
You are protected by wp-dephorm: