Republican comments on Health Care

DeeJayH · 08-28-09, 08:26 PM

defending Inhofe - one can be opposed to something based on principles, so he may just be opposed the govt getting involved so much in such a large portion of our economy, regardless of the manner it is proposed

SouthernDemocrat · 08-28-09, 08:40 PM

Thus far, to summarize the Republican Talking Points against the bills in congress:

"Obamacare" will:

1. Nationalize Healthcare and give us the U.K. System - Not True.

2. Institute Government Death Panels - Not True.

3. They will use voting records to deny treatment to Republicans - Not True.

4. It's comparable to National Socialism (Nazism) - Not True.

5. Will force you into government healthcare - Not True.

6. Will result in "Soviet Style" rationing - Not True.

7. Government Healthcare is bad but trust us to protect Medicare from the Democrats.

8. We can't afford it. - Probably True.

9. It doesn't do anything to control actual health care costs. - True.

So basically, its: "The Democrats are Communist Sociopaths that will kill your grandmother and special needs kids, and use soviet style health care to control you."

They have preferred arguing 1 through 7 because the arguments for 8 and 9 won't fit on a bumper sticker.

OxymoronP · 08-28-09, 08:46 PM

Quote:

1. Nationalize Healthcare and give us the U.K. System - Not True.

If they put in the public option most likely that is where we are headed.

Quote:

2. Institute Government Death Panels - Not True.

Most likely not true.

Quote:

3. They will use voting records to deny treatment to Republicans - Not True.

Didnt hear that.

Quote:

4. It's comparable to National Socialism (Nazism) - Not True.

Why isnt comparable? Aside their Genocide they were a political party and did many things which are overshadowed by their actions on another topic.

Quote:

5. Will force you into government healthcare - Not True.

It wont force you no, but it will lay the ground work for it.

Quote:

6. Will result in "Soviet Style" rationing - Not True.

How do you know it isnt true, if the results arent in? You can say most likely not true.

Quote:

7. Will cut Medicare benefits - Not True (All they plan to do is eliminate overpayments to Medicare Advantage)

For now, what happens if they are not able to save all the money they promise too?

SouthernDemocrat · 08-28-09, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OxymoronP

If they put in the public option most likely that is where we are headed.

Thats a matter of opinion though. We would have to head a long ways before we got there.

Quote:

Why isnt comparable? Aside their Genocide they were a political party and did many things which are overshadowed by their actions on another topic.

Because the Democrats are not extreme nationalists, with an ideology based in racism and cultish theocracy, that engage in genocide. Thats why it isn't comparable. So what if the Nazis were in favor of Universal Healthcare, so is every other developed nation - are they all like Nazis? Thats like saying, Hitler loved his dogs, Reagan loved his dogs, therefore Reagan is like Hitler (as if Hitler's love of dogs is what made him evil). See what I mean.

OxymoronP · 08-28-09, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Because the Democrats are not extreme nationalists, with an ideology based in racism and cultish theocracy, that engage in genocide. Thats why it isn't comparable. So what if the Nazis were in favor of Universal Healthcare, so is every other developed nation - are they all like Nazis? Thats like saying, Hitler loved his dogs, Reagan loved his dogs, therefore Reagan is like Hitler. See what I mean

I understand, I just dont like it when people cannot have rational discussions about Nazis . Yes most were scum, but many of their policies should be examined fairly outside the context of their dispicable actions.

formerroadie · 08-28-09, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeeJayH

defending Inhofe - one can be opposed to something based on principles, so he may just be opposed the govt getting involved so much in such a large portion of our economy, regardless of the manner it is proposed

Ok, I agree with that, but it seems that no matter what he was going to get out of the compromise, he was going to vote no. Seems to me he wants to vote against the bill no matter what happens. Maybe I'm reading over the top but he does get more money from the HC industry than most in the Senate. He's up there in the top I believe. I would have to look it up.

formerroadie · 08-28-09, 10:02 PM

Ok, fine, you want specifics, then lets do this. First, stop being a rude poster. It doesn't help your argument.

Quote:

#1) Huckabee: Apparently, like the headline writer, you didn't actually read Huckabee's quote.

I disagree. The first line of the quote states that Obama would rather the person take painkillers and die rather than get the more expensive treatment. Then Huckabee compared that to Kennedy and his choice to take a more expensive route. You see, if you take away the first claim, the one the article is titled, then there is no comparison to make and the second example makes no sense, except to exemplify Kennedy's legacy and fight against cancer. The implication in the comparison is that, under the Obama plan, Kennedy would have been told to take a pain pill and suck it up, which is entirely not true.

Quote:

#2) The WellPoint letter points out three facts that neither you nor the article attempt to refute. Care to take a crack at actually debating these three points? Bring your 'A' game.

Ok, how are these even close to "facts?"

Quote:

· Causing tens of millions of Americans to lose their private coverage and end up in a government-run plan;

· Limiting customers' choices of the products they can purchase and how they can purchase health coverage; and

· Increasing the premiums of those with private coverage by imposing new mandates and coverage requirements.

#1 - There is a choice in the plan. Other societies, like Australia, have a public and private option and they do just fine. The choice is there for their people to choose one or the other. How is that a fact? Seems like the Insurance Company is trying to cover their bottom line, not their customers.

#2 - That is just an outright lie. We will have more choice. Plus, what it should add is "which is exactly what we do but just ignore that and believe this lie so we can kill a public option for competition."

#3 - That has yet to be proven at all. In fact, logic states that the premiums will go down. More people in the pool, less cost. It's pretty easy to understand. Plus, the government option will be non-profit (which is exactly how all health insurance should be) and have less over head. It will bring costs down, and, given the models that Obama is working off in his ideas and if those ideas make it into the plan, it will actual make care better.

I'm not sure where you get your talking points, but they are not based in facts. You yell at me for posting links to start a discussion (which worked) and then you make assumptions about things without your own backup.

Quote:

#3) Stupid fundraising stunts. Yes it's stupid, yes everyone does it, no that doesn't make it right. How is highlighting this helping the debate? If you were interested in debate you would be refuting at least the one obviously erroneous assertion.

It shows that the Republicans are actively supporting lies and taking advantage of the ignorance of their constituency. How is that not relevant? You need me to refute this?

Quote:

It has been suggested that the government could use voter registration to determine a person's political affiliation, prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system. Does this possibility concern you?

Seems obvious to me how that is fallacious and misleading. It places stupid ideas into ignorant people who then go out and "spread the word." Exactly what the Republicans want given their rhetoric as of late.

Quote:

#4) Inhofe is an idiot if he follows up on his claim. Please don't pretend that Democrats are any better.

Glad you agree and you don't have to use your vile tone again. You want to debate, fine, then do so without the chip on your shoulder. If you read the OP and actually paid attention, you would notice that I said this:

Quote:

If these were dems, I would be e-mailing them letters every hour on the hour.

I don't pretend the people in my party are perfect or that they don't have idiots. They do. So, let's get back to the OP.

Quote:

#5) Surprise, HuffPo has to add words to quotes in order to make up another title. At no point in any of his quotations does Congressman Enzi make such a claim. Given the steaming pile of crap that is the bill in progress at the Finance Committee, I'm gald there's someone fighting for "what I get them to leave out".

On this, you are correct. I should have read more carefully.

Now, when you can be civil and leave the snark at the door, start debating. Otherwise, quit bringing the debate down to the level of a yelling match.

Solidus · 08-29-09, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by formerroadie

"First, stop being a rude poster. It doesn't help your argument."

You start a thread that calls all Republican leaders evil, lazy, liars and anyone who agrees with any of their claims to be stupid (all without providing any evidence to counter any of the claims); yet you call me rude and say I'm detracting from the debate. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Quote:

Originally Posted by formerroadie

"The first line of the quote states that Obama would rather the person take painkillers and die rather than get the more expensive treatment."

No he is accurately quoting President Obama. [1, yes it's a slanted site; ignore the text commentary it's the video that contains the quote I'm referencing] President Obama believes that if people were provided with the information that the expensive procedure probably wouldn't do much to improve QALY (Quality of Life Adjusted Years), that people would spend less of the governments money. Mr. Huckabee pointed out that Senator Kennedy chose otherwise, as many of us would do, despite having that knowledge. He never mentioned ObamaCare or any of the bills, just President Obama's statement.

The health care debate topics we should be discussing instead of this: How does government plan on reducing Medicare costs? Are denying treatments based on CER (Comparative Effectiveness Research) on the table as an option? Is making health cost-benefit decisions a proper role of the government, or should that be strictly limited to the individual?

Quote:

Originally Posted by formerroadie

"#1 - There is a choice in the plan. Other societies, like Australia, have a public and private option and they do just fine. The choice is there for their people to choose one or the other. How is that a fact? Seems like the Insurance Company is trying to cover their bottom line, not their customers."

Depending on how the public plan is established (still in progress in the Senate) various studies have identified that employers would drop their private coverage for the public option (based on issues such as the difference between the "pay or play" penalty and the cost of private insurance, the reimbursement rate of the public option, etc.). The Lewin Group cites 119 million (public option at Medicare rates open for all) down to 32 million (public option at Medicare rates open only to Small Business and Individuals) [2]. The CBO cites 6 million. [3] The Lewin Group numbers include both voluntary and involuntary movement, however is it really "involuntary" when your employer makes the choice for you? I'll grant you that WellPoint chose the most dramatic numbers "tens of millions"; but the fact remains that millions of people will be forced out of their private plans. We can have a debate on weather forcing people into the public option is a good idea, or weather it's a unfortunate side-effect of a greater good, it is however a fact.

Health care debate topics we should be discussing instead of this: In any of these other countries does the public and private plans directly compete or are they providing niche services? (ie. USPS doesn't compete with FedEx since FedEx is legally limited to express service) Why is increasing the number of insurance providers by one such a game changer? Aren't there other changes that a public option requires that have a greater impact than the public option itself (like a national marketplace)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by formerroadie

"#2 - That is just an outright lie. We will have more choice."

False. The House Bill will, "Prohibit coverage purchased through the individual market from qualifying as acceptable coverage for purposes of the individual mandate unless it is grandfathered coverage. Individuals can purchase a qualifying health benefit plan through the Health Insurance Exchange." [4] So you will be penalized for purchasing insurance outside the "exchange". Furthermore, both the House and Senate bills would, "Create the essential health care benefits package that provides a comprehensive array of services and prohibits inclusion of lifetime or annual limits on the dollar value of the benefits. The essential health benefits must be included in all qualified health plans and must be equal to the scope of benefits provided by a typical employer plan. Create a temporary, independent commission to advise the Secretary in the development of the essential health benefit package." [4] So the government will decide what your insurance policy must look like (at a minimum), and these minimums are being set so high as to eliminate high-deductible insurance as an example. So right there is around 2 million people (as of 2006) for issue #1 above. [5] No one knows what mandates will be included, however it is unlikely for a national exchange to have mandate requirements that are less stringent than any individual state. So many consumers in a vast majority of states will have less say over what their insurance plan covers. Let alone the obvious lobbyist free-for-all that will ensue to get further treatments mandated coverage.

Health care debate topics we should be discussing instead of this: Actually this is a good one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by formerroadie

"#3 - That has yet to be proven at all. In fact, logic states that the premiums will go down. More people in the pool, less cost. It's pretty easy to understand. Plus, the government option will be non-profit (which is exactly how all health insurance should be) and have less over head. It will bring costs down, and, given the models that Obama is working off in his ideas and if those ideas make it into the plan, it will actual make care better."

You're not reading, the claim is that private insurance costs will go up. With both House and Senate bills mandating guaranteed issue, community rating, and other specific coverage mandates private insurance rates will increase.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2004 CEA

"“Community Rating” laws, which limit insurers’ ability to charge different prices to different customers, raise prices by 20.3 percent for individual policies and 27.3 percent for family policies ... Mandated benefits raise the expected price of an individual policy by
approximately 0.4 percent per mandate. For family policies the increase is approximately 0.5 percent per mandate. The typical state has about 20 mandates (with a range from 6 to 48) so a reduction from 20 to 10 mandates would imply a 4 percent decrease in price for individual policies, and a 5 percent decrease for family policies." [6]

Increased costs for private insurance under either the House or Senate bill is simply a fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by formerroadie

"It shows that the Republicans are actively supporting lies and taking advantage of the ignorance of their constituency. How is that not relevant? You need me to refute this?"

The statement, "the Republicans are fear mongering" does nothing to further the debate. It's akin to the counterpoint "the Democrats are over promising". Alone, these statements are just partisan mudslinging. If you want to have a debate provide evidence that these claims are false. Rather than just taking SouthernDemocrat's word for it.

Health care debate topics we should be discussing instead of this: If the government is given much more control over health insurance, what happens when the next George W. Bush is elected?

Quote:

Originally Posted by formerroadie

"Seems obvious to me how that is fallacious and misleading. It places stupid ideas into ignorant people who then go out and "spread the word." Exactly what the Republicans want given their rhetoric as of late."

Great you've identified the one obviously misleading question. According to the article the rest were quite accurate concerns. Again, you say you hold Democrats and others to the same standards yet no comment on them using the same tactics as the original article mentions. Why is this even news? Oh yeah ... it's the GOP and health care.

Quote:

Originally Posted by formerroadie

"Now, when you can be civil and leave the snark at the door, start debating. Otherwise, quit bringing the debate down to the level of a yelling match."

Perhaps you should try raising the level of debate to evidence supported facts, instead of slandering the opposition. It's taken until now for you to address any of the underlying health care reform topics, so please don't pretend you have the "civil debate" high ground. Again, I'll point to any of the other threads where civil debate is already underway.

[1] Hot Air Blog Archive Video: Let them eat painkillers
[2] http://www.lewin.com/content/publica...ignOptions.pdf
[3] http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc...tee-Rangel.pdf
[4] http://www.kff.org/healthreform/uplo...m_sbs_full.pdf
[5] http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7568.pdf
[6] http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content...dates-memo.pdf

Solidus · 08-29-09, 06:01 PM

Forgot ...

The "voting records used to deny care" scare probably stems from this, "Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."" [1]

It's a large unjustified leap to get from there to voting records and denying care or credits. But there is an underlying relevant information privacy issue. Why they couldn't just use the above in the fund raising letter I don't know, again stupid fund raising stunts.

[1] Democratic Health Care Bill Divulges IRS Tax Data - Taking Liberties - CBS News

formerroadie · 08-29-09, 09:57 PM

You sited the Lewin Group... you do know who owns the Lewin group right?

Frankly, all of the countries that have these systems are doing fine. We have no excuse given our wealth. People who argue against this are finding anyway possible to defeat it based on, well, nothing.

Also, I am reading. The RIGHT'S claim is that private insurer's prices will go up. It makes no logical sense for that to be the case given more competition and a larger pool. Sorry, I don't buy that line of BS.

UHC for all. It's a moral and ethical imperative. You can paint the lies in the OP anyway you want, hide them behind false numbers, site the Lewin Group, etc but it doesn't make it so.

Lastly, quit being rude. You got snarky because I asked if my conservative DP colleagues would call these people out on their exaggerations and misinformation like I would on my democratic leaders (in fact, I e-mail Republicans too. All the people in those stories have gotten letters from me. Can't gripe until you do something about it). You wanna buy the crap info, that's your choice. You're the one who brought the level of conversation down. OxymoronP and Southerndemocrat both have been able to do it, why can't you?

08-28-09, 08:40 PM	#12
SouthernDemocrat Libertarian Left Join Date: Jun 2005 Last Seen: Today 04:20 PM Location: KC Posts: 6,708 Thanks: 995 Thanked 1,823 Times in 1,008 Posts Lean: Independent Gender:	Re: Republican comments on Health Care Thus far, to summarize the Republican Talking Points against the bills in congress: "Obamacare" will: 1. Nationalize Healthcare and give us the U.K. System - Not True. 2. Institute Government Death Panels - Not True. 3. They will use voting records to deny treatment to Republicans - Not True. 4. It's comparable to National Socialism (Nazism) - Not True. 5. Will force you into government healthcare - Not True. 6. Will result in "Soviet Style" rationing - Not True. 7. Government Healthcare is bad but trust us to protect Medicare from the Democrats. 8. We can't afford it. - Probably True. 9. It doesn't do anything to control actual health care costs. - True. So basically, its: "The Democrats are Communist Sociopaths that will kill your grandmother and special needs kids, and use soviet style health care to control you." They have preferred arguing 1 through 7 because the arguments for 8 and 9 won't fit on a bumper sticker.
	__________________ *“A drink a day keeps the shrink away”* *- Edward Abbey*

08-29-09, 06:01 PM	#19
Solidus Student Join Date: Oct 2007 Last Seen: 03-04-10 03:47 PM Location: California Posts: 206 Thanks: 27 Thanked 127 Times in 77 Posts Gender: Total Awards: 1	Re: Republican comments on Health Care Forgot ... The "voting records used to deny care" scare probably stems from this, "Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."" [1] It's a large unjustified leap to get from there to voting records and denying care or credits. But there is an underlying relevant information privacy issue. Why they couldn't just use the above in the fund raising letter I don't know, again stupid fund raising stunts. [1] Democratic Health Care Bill Divulges IRS Tax Data - Taking Liberties - CBS News

08-29-09, 09:57 PM	#20
formerroadie Professor Join Date: May 2009 Last Seen: 02-28-10 06:18 PM Location: Texas Posts: 2,014 Thanks: 888 Thanked 588 Times in 354 Posts Lean: Liberal Gender:	Re: Republican comments on Health Care You sited the Lewin Group... you do know who owns the Lewin group right? Frankly, all of the countries that have these systems are doing fine. We have no excuse given our wealth. People who argue against this are finding anyway possible to defeat it based on, well, nothing. Also, I am reading. The RIGHT'S claim is that private insurer's prices will go up. It makes no logical sense for that to be the case given more competition and a larger pool. Sorry, I don't buy that line of BS. UHC for all. It's a moral and ethical imperative. You can paint the lies in the OP anyway you want, hide them behind false numbers, site the Lewin Group, etc but it doesn't make it so. Lastly, quit being rude. You got snarky because I asked if my conservative DP colleagues would call these people out on their exaggerations and misinformation like I would on my democratic leaders (in fact, I e-mail Republicans too. All the people in those stories have gotten letters from me. Can't gripe until you do something about it). You wanna buy the crap info, that's your choice. You're the one who brought the level of conversation down. OxymoronP and Southerndemocrat both have been able to do it, why can't you?
	__________________ It's time for a revolution in our country. Not a revolution forged with guns and bombs but a revolution forged of compassion and altruism. A revolution that extends a hand to those who don't have and who cannot. A revolution that makes Health Care available to all those in the US. Last edited by formerroadie; 08-29-09 at 09:59 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode