« America’s Wounded Warriors — Honor Courage and Sacrifice (Guest Voice)
Will There Be a Jobless Recovery? Maybe Not, but the Economy is Still in Terrible Shape. »
The Real “Lies” About Health Care Reform
Aug 12th, 2009 | 108 responses
One of the most loosely used words in current American political discussion and screamfests (the two are not always the same) is the word “lie.” A difference of perspective and an actual lie are not the same thing. So what are the actual “lies’ in the healthcare debate?
Watch this CNN report on rumors about healthcare reform that are being spread as fact — not just on the Internet but on some talk shows. Note that neither side comes out pristine on this:
The question: whether such political “urban legends” are used against Democrats or Republicans, how can those who are the target of the urban legends combat them? And what can be done to combat what is literally misinformation in general that spreads at lighthing speed due to the new media as American heads into what is shaping up to be a very turbulent and angry 21st century?
In the case of healthcare, the White House started a website to try and combat the inaccurate stuff “out there.” But whether these kinds of bits of information forwarded by email or spready by talk show hosts who have to get more and more outrageous to increase viewership in a nice market are used against one side or the other, the troubling fact is this: people who believe such urban legends a)don’t want to unbelieve them and b)will consider ay source that tries to explain what’s true or not as a tool of their opponents.
So what’s the solution — and what does this say about where the U.S. is heading in its politics?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
108 Responses to “The Real “Lies” About Health Care Reform”
She did, George. I'm one of them. If you want to appear a receptive participant in the discussion, quit the passive aggressive “I require sources, but I'm not interested enough to copy and paste.” Participate in the dialog, or don't. It's up to you.
And GD, your numbers are misleading. Checks written divided by persons covered is government accounting. Let's talk about what every private sector organization has to answer for: checks written plus checks likely to need to be written in the future, divided by checks cashed plus checks likely to come in. By this measure Medicare is haemorrhaging red ink.
CStanley couldn't provide a link because, um, she'd already closed the tab.
Honestly, Dr J, who's being passive aggressive?
That's right, George, I generally do, as a courtesy, put in a URL link to make it easy for people to look up the source that I cite. However, occasionally due to real life time constraints, I am unable to provide this convenience for you. Since I cited what the source of the material was, you're only complaint is that I didn't dump the primary source material into your lap and if you wanted to reference it you would have had to look it up for yourself.
So yes, your complaint appears petty, and appears to be designed to avoid addressing the substance of what I wrote, which is why other commenters are calling you on it. I'm happy to debate on the actual substance of the issues, but I'm not going to be drawn into repeatedly being put on the defense when I've met reasonable standards of backing up my claims (unlike many other commenters, I might again add- whom you don't continually question about their sources.)
CStanley–
If I'm continually questioning you about your sources, how can you say you generally include links?
You can't have it both ways.
You personally can't be bothered to provide sources because of “real life time constraints”. And if someone wants to double check the quality of your source it's their responsibility to use their own time to hunt it down or be called lazy and petty and passive aggressive.
So go ahead and declare yourself the winner.
George, providing sources means citing the source of the material, which I did.
Providing links, as I also mentioned, is a courtesy, not a requirement for backing up one's statements. The source of the material was provided- and easy access to it with me doing the work to make it easier for you is not a 'source', it's putting the primary source at your fingertips. What next, should I copy and paste entire primary source materials here to save you the finger click on a link?
I'm not interested in declaring myself a winner in your absurd game. If you have anything on topic to say (for instance, was I correct or incorrect in my earlier statement about Obama's healthcare plan relying on cuts to Medicare expenditures in order to finance the rest of it?) then I'll be back. Otherwise, I'm not wasting any more time on this.
DJ “checks written plus checks likely to need to be written in the future”
As I've noted, the same applies to private insurance. No company could meet its obligations, except by dropping patients if they actually need the coverage they're paying for.
CS, DJ the fact is that we pay over twice as much for worse outcomes than our global competitors. Both of you have claimed you are not pawns of the medical and insurance industry, yet both of you argue to prevent change in a toxic system that doesn't work. Not until you or a loved one face bankruptcy for something that would be covered EVERYWHERE ELSE on the planet, will you admit that this system was just about accumulating wealth and not about providing excellent, cost effective medicine.
yet both of you argue to prevent change in a toxic system that doesn't work.
There's that false accusation which we've disproven several times over, GD.
We don't agree with you on the type of change that you think will help. We've tried to explain why, and we've explained what changes we think would actually help rather than making the current cost problems worse.
Yet you choose to continually misrepresent our positions, and our motivations. Why? I don't doubt your sincerity or choose to believe that you want the country to go bankrupt- I just think you misunderstand the costs involved and our inability to pay for everything that you think everyone should have. I realize that you think that if profit were stripped out it would all work out for everyone, but that isn't at all self evident and the evidence instead tends to disprove what you believe.
What CStanley said, GD. I also dispute what you're representing as facts: that private insurance companies are not making their books balance, that we don't get anything for the additional money we spend over other countries, that they constitute competitors rather than beneficiaries of our spending (think how much more we spend on defense), or that the current system supports a few fat cats accumulating billions of dollars. And your characterization of my position is as relentlessly wrong as ever.
Basically, Greendreams, I don't think a single thing you've said is actually true.