#13 Government Healthcare – One Giant Death Panel
A Reference Library
Capsule: #13 Government Healthcare – One Giant Death Panel illustrates how the individual liberty of every American is being reduced by government meddling in the healthcare system. This government interference is also hugely and needlessly expensive in terms of money and patient wellness. Now you will understand the true costs of government running healthcare in America.
Liberals Insist that a 3.3% Profit Margin Is Gouging
Focus: Name the two scoundrels of healthcare. 1) Insurance companies with an average 3.3% profit of $8B? 2) Trial lawyers who sue doctors for a 14% average profit? 3) Government Medicare fleeced for $60B of fraud?
Details: #13 Government Healthcare – One Giant Death Panel reveals that almost everything liberals believe about the American healthcare system is myth. Even previous to Obamacare it was not a purely free market system. Virtually every deficiency is a result of government meddling in the free market. Liberals want ‘universal healthcare’ where the government runs and pays for everything (utopia). As someone who lives with ‘universal healthcare’ in Canada, I can assure you that you will be shocked to learn how much more Canadians are dissatisfied with their healthcare system than are Americans (before Obamacare). You will also be shocked to learn that ‘universal healthcare’ is hardly universal, and actually costs much more than American healthcare previous to Obamacare. Here is another shocker: Virtually every ‘expert’ President Obama relies on to advise him on healthcare has advocated for the necessity of ‘death panels’. One word describes the impact of this essay for the reader – shocked!
Excerpt: ~Think Dentistry. It is not covered by Canada’s “universal” healthcare system, so consumers are left to fend for themselves in the free market. So they either purchase private insurance coverage or pay out-of-pocket. In Edmonton where I live, there are 43 Yellow pages devoted to Dentists and Denturists in a metropolitan area of only 800,000 population! Lots of competition – lots of choice for consumers. People seem to have pretty nice teeth in Edmonton. How can that be possible without government involvement? [/sarcasm] Think about this: How often is the “high cost” of going to the dentist in the news? Never. How often are there news stories about people “falling through” the dental market cracks. Never. How often does one read about dental care “rationing”? Never. That’s the free market at work. Dentistry is the most reliable, timely and cost-effective healthcare there is – all without the government. Actually, because the government stays out of it.~
Preface: The Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series is written for both contemporary American liberals and contemporary American conservatives – for the liberal (or progressive) as an exit counseling process with the purpose of removing the inherent paranoia that prevents them from seeing that in their core belief they are, in fact not a liberal, and for the conservative as a strategy for dealing with liberal acquaintances. (FYI, I am a Canadian – the implications of this are explained in the Introduction and #1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments.)
[All citations are active number/letter codes. Code links beginning with an * indicate that the linked page has additional information for the topic at hand. Links without an * are cited for evidence of existence and reference only, as in a quotation or number or case in point. Citations validate my points so that you can trust my claims, and will often provide you with invaluable supplemental information.]
Written in first-person narrative to liberals,
but also for conservatives.
• Mini critical thinking exercise – think flowers, puppies & kittens
This essay is about healthcare and how the liberal media filter operates in regard to it. The reason I am saying this up front instead of just allowing you to discover it, is because Sarah Palin is also a part of this essay (shudder). [/sarcasm] And we all know that just the thought of Sarah Palin can send even the most average liberal into visceral hysterics, American neighbor, so as you read this essay and find yourself emotionally reacting to the mere mention of Sarah Palin’s name (as in right now), I want you to stop, calm yourself down (think of flowers and puppies and kittens – anything but S.P.), and then put your Mr. Spock demeanor back on and continue. Let me repeat, this essay is about the American healthcare system and how the liberal media filter operates in regard to it. Sarah Palin (think puppies) is only used as an illustration. [/somewhat sarcasm]
Besides the government there are two potential villains to examine in regard to the costs of the health insurance industry, American neighbor. One has a paltry 3.3% average profit margin, while the other has a whopping 14% average profit margin! Which one do you think liberals view as the villains of healthcare? And answer me this, American neighbor: Do you think more government healthcare provides you with more liberty to direct your own life, or less?ab
• ‘Wither on the vine’
I wonder if you remember this, American neighbor. In 1995 the healthcare system was a hot topic for debate (isn’t it always?), and Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich made a speech in which he addressed the issue of the health care bureaucracy. The Republicans were proposing to revise the bureaucracy with the intent of eliminating a layer known as the Health Care Financing Administration and replacing it with a private market alternative like Blue Cross to administer Medicare standards (this is the same bureaucracy today known as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that is infamously in the news for being swindled out of tens of billions of your tax dollars every year [3yog5js]). Gingrich said:
~ “You know we tell Boris Yeltsin [the then leader of Russia after the recent fall of the U.S.S.R.], ‘Get rid of centralized command bureaucracies. Go to the marketplace.’ Okay, what do you think the Health Care Financing Administration is? It’s a centralized command bureaucracy. It’s everything we’re telling Boris Yeltzin to get rid of. Now we don’t get rid of it in round one because we don’t think that’s politically smart. We don’t think that’s the right way to go through a transition.” –Speaker Newt Gingrich, remarks to Blue Cross/Blue Shield conference, 10/24/95 [3x6cryf]
300-word pages of text = 42
Reference citation links = 49
Recommended-reading links = 44
Profound insights = 41
Cover photo: Cover photo: U.S. Department of Energy photograph XX-28 GEORGE
Cover background: SQUIDFINGERS [4rol8]
Copyright 2012 Jim Autio License Note: Although free, this essay remains the copyrighted property of the author, and may not be reproduced, copied or distributed for commercial or non-commercial purposes. For fair use only.
In the Toledo Blade the reporter described the Health Care Financing Administration as:
~…the federal bureaucracy that determines what procedures must be followed, and the reimbursement schedules for healthcare providers. You know, the agency that pays $7 for an aspirin.~ [3x6cryf]
Now, using your Mr. Spock analysis, it is obvious that Gingrich was speaking of eliminating a specific government bureaucracy, is it not, American neighbor? Do you see the Medicare benefit plan mentioned anywhere, American neighbor? Neither do I. Gingrich then went on to conclude:
~ “But we believe it’s [the bureaucracy] going to wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it — voluntarily.”~ [3x6cryf]
I bet you remember this now, American neighbor. This statement went on to become one of the most infamous out-of-context quotations of all time for liberals. The “wither on the vine” was quickly twisted into attributing to Medicare as a whole by the Blackshirts in the liberal media and has been used ever since as a demagogic bludgeon by liberals to scare seniors into believing that Republicans were going to take away their Medicare and leave them with nothing. At the time CNN correspondent Brooks Jackson described such demagoguery as:
~That’s just dishonest. What Gingrich really said was that the Republicans believed the Medicare bureaucracy would wither on the vine — not Medicare benefits.~ [28thkwk]
The Republican idea was that given a choice between a government bureaucratic administrator and a private administrator like Blue Cross for their Medicare plan, seniors would prefer the private alternative, causing the bureaucracy to “wither on the vine” as seniors abandoned it for the free market alternative. Medicare benefits would have been left untouched, and maybe those swindled tens of billions of tax dollars would have been saved as well, but just like with Bill Clinton’s mythical budget surpluses, paranoid alpha liberals still scoff off the reality and insist Republicans were out to destroy Medicare and throw seniors to the wolves. Try a web search for >medicare “wither on the vine”< and you’ll get tens of thousands of results despite the fact that this happened years before the public explosion of the internet.ac
• Liberalism makes healthcare more expensive, not the free market
As Herman Cain poignantly states, “We don’t have a healthcare crisis in America. We have a healthcare cost crisis in America.”
A liberal mantra has been that America needs Obamacare because the free market based system is too expensive and has failed. I have a question for you, American neighbor: What free market based healthcare system? Is Medicaid free market based? No, it is government-run. Is Medicare free market based? No, it too is run by the government. Is Veterans Affairs healthcare free market based? Nope – government-run. Is the Children’s Health Insurance Program free market. No again. What about the Health Care Financing Administration that Newt Gingrich said he hoped would “wither on the vine”? It just morphed into another government agency now known as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, so no, it is not free market based either. In fact, very little about the American healthcare system previous to Obamacare was free market based. It was all under the jurisdiction of a government command-style regulatory system that has meddled in virtually every aspect of it. Do you want to know why American healthcare costs are so high, American neighbor? I’ll tell you why – and it isn’t because of the free marketplace. Think of the 2008 financial crisis in slow motion. Just as with that crisis, liberal meddling is the problem with the American healthcare system. And so, what is the liberal solution? Why, more liberalism of course. Here is your new healthcare system American neighbor: [*32b58j2, *3yo52at] (800 pound gorilla alert!) Why would you put any faith in government projections? They have a history of notoriously underestimating costs of virtually every government program ever implemented. The first of the following links illustrates the history of this fact, and the other three links prove the truth of it with Obamacare, which has already doubled in expected cost if implemented from $1T to $2T over its first ten years: [*kseyk8, *7t64knp, *6n3locp, *dxhnbjn] In reality, if implemented it will probably cost even more than that. Update: Only six months later the estimated cost is now up to $2.6T for the first ten years. [*ptmkcsg] And then there are the inevitable unintended consequences that will increase the hidden costs. [*pmu3ayt]
When liberals complain that American healthcare is too expensive, what they are saying is that free market healthcare is too expensive, and that if only government ran healthcare instead, costs would go down. The problem with this line of thinking is that everything that makes healthcare expensive is as a result of a distorted consumer marketplace because of government interference – progressive-fascism. There are many reasons American healthcare is needlessly expensive, and none of them have to do with a supposed free market system soaking Americans. The health insurance companies who are supposedly the villains because they are supposedly gouging Americans to make inflated profits, are not making out like bandits as has been propagandized by liberals. In fact health insurance industry profits are relatively small.ad
• Healthcare profits are relatively small
Let’s get some perspective, American neighbor. In 2008 the health insurance industry in total had a profit of $8B (billion dollars). Whereas Medicare fraud alone amounted to $60B. [yzu5dfz, yfqm2ek] Read those numbers again, American neighbor. If fraud in Medicare could only be pared 13% that would be equivalent to ALL health insurance industry profits. Maybe it would have been better if the Medicare management bureaucracy had been allowed to “wither on the vine” – hmmm, American neighbor? Certainly Blue Cross or some other private company could have done a better job at protecting taxpayers money than the government has hasn’t. In fact, no private company could survive such fraud. Senior management would all be fired. Some might be investigated, perhaps charged. Do you think any government bureaucrats were fired, American neighbor. No, I don’t think so either.
You can see for yourself that health insurance industry profits are hardly significant in the cost of American healthcare when compared to just the money that slips through the fingers of just one government bureaucracy. Health insurance industry profits for 2008 were 2.2%. Let’s compare that with some other industries like construction and farm machinery at 5%, Yahoo at 5.9%, Hershey at 6.1%, Tupperware Brands at 7.5%, Molson Coors Brewing at 8.1%, Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell) at 8.5%, Clorox at 8.7%, the railways at 12.6%, and the network and communications industry at 20.4%. [28weqab] Here is a list of many more: [yk8zw9b] So much for the healthcare-insurance-industry-profit-gouging theory. If anything, their cupboard is looking a little bare, but that really isn’t any surprise – wait until you have seen how much the government interfered in the healthcare marketplace even in 2008, before the increase in interference of Obamacare. Its a wonder the healthcare insurance industry made any profits at all. Their CEOs should be given medals of honor just for keeping them in business. In fact, pity the poor doctor – literally. Government meddling in the healthcare system has virtually made practicing medicine unprofitable. Read this and worry big-time, American neighbor. [*88mrebu]ae
• Causes for the high cost of healthcare
As you read the following list of causes for the high cost of healthcare with your Mr. Spock demeanor and third person analysis, ask yourself how many of these reasons are a result of the free market and how many are the result of progressive-fascism:
• We have already discovered that there is $60B worth of fraud each year in the healthcare system. This is the government getting fleeced because of the incompetence and unaccountability of its own bureaucrats. Let’s let them “wither on the vine”, or better yet, just cut the suckers off and let the private healthcare management industry run the system, since they are accountable to their stockholders, and can be held accountable through the courts by taxpayers. Problem solved – tens of billions of dollars saved right there.
• And speaking of healthcare bureaucrats, it is not just their incompetence and unaccountability that drive up costs in the healthcare system. Government bureaucrats are grossly overpaid and over-benefited, and virtually cannot be fired for any incompetence and waste (like $60B being fleeced right out from under their noses). Their pension plans alone are completely out of proportion with the rest of the country, and all of the lopsided public sector health benefit packages also unbalance the healthcare marketplace and add to the costs the taxpayer must absorb. Additionally their public sector unions are the most aggressive lobby organizations in the country for larger and more costly government. Ever heard of a public sector union offer ideas for saving the taxpayer money that would cost their bottom line, American neighbor? Me neither. Eliminating government bureaucracies is another area where untold billions of healthcare dollars could be saved each year. [*cnsatqm, *ykw3sro, *2det4t5, *24m7xwd, *bmdzbet, *3afd923]
• Insurance with automatic deductions from paychecks removes the consumer from his purchasing decisions. If one buys a car, one compares quality, availability, price, etc. before signing over the money for the purchase. This leads to competition for customers among auto dealers. Not so with employer/government based healthcare insurance where the consumer never really sees the money paid and may not even have the luxury of choice. The hiding of the true costs leads to little competition, which when buying a car minimizes prices. Healthcare consumers should at least have to pay a percentage deductible of the total cost out-of-pocket so that they have an enticement to search out the best deal, thus creating competition in the healthcare marketplace, reducing monopolization, and minimizing prices. [6pbzdpe]
• Remember from earlier I mentioned that government spending projections on healthcare have always been ludicrously out of whack with reality? Here’s why. Private market healthcare spending by necessity must respond to marketplace factors like a downturn in the economy, whereas government healthcare spending does not respond to marketplace realities like the 2008 recession. The overall 2008 healthcare spending growth rate of 4.4% was the lowest since 1960, but this was because of lower private sector spending. Medicaid was up 8.4%, Medicare was up 8.6% and the Children’s Health Insurance Program was up a whopping 13.4%! Read this link, American neighbor – it’s a real head shaker: [*yehtrp9]
• Doctors must carry very high malpractice insurance due to extremely high litigation awards by the courts, and of course these costs must be passed on to patients and the system in general. This drives doctors to practice what is known as defensive medicine, over-prescribing drugs, hospitalizing patients not necessarily needing it, and ordering many more tests than would normally be necessary in order to cover themselves from any possible lawsuit. A Gallup survey found that physicians attribute 34% of healthcare spending goes to defensive medicine. [*oqhmg3o] With total spending in 2011 of $2.7T, that means over 900 billion dollars may have been spent on unnecessary procedures and tests just to play it safe in case of law suits. [azn54f2] Remember, the health insurance industry only made $8B total profit in 2008. And get this, American neighbor. While the health insurance industry averages a 3.3% profit margin, trial lawyers who benefit from high litigation awards by the courts (also conveniently run by lawyers) average a 14% profit margin per year! [yfqu7na] Liberals love regulation. America has only 5% of the world’s population, but 50% of the world’s lawyers. If there was ever an issue where liberals and conservatives could agree on government imposed restrictions, this is it. The trial lawyers are bloodsuckers living high while bleeding the healthcare system for every dime they can get. 14%!!! So who exactly are the villains now, American neighbor? This could easily be remedied, except that the trial lawyers have the Democratic Party in their pocket, being one of their largest financial contributors as a group. Indeed Obamacare, instead of remedying the problem, exacerbated it by providing additional legal jurisdiction for even more lawsuits. [3xvzw5u] So implement tort reform and this will easily solve another problem with additional billions saved each year, and also clean up a segment of the Democratic Party fundraising Laundromat.
• Employees who get their healthcare coverage through their employer don’t pay taxes on it as a benefit. However those who purchase their health coverage independently do not receive this advantage, and if a couple is not married and one depends on the other’s employer plan, it is considered taxable. There is no good reason for this discrimination that adds inefficiency to the system.
• Economics 101 teaches that increased competition and choice reduce consumer prices, but the states limit competition in health insurance, and mandate service coverage, effectively removing choice from the consumer. This artificial production of monopoly situations naturally leads to higher consumer prices and less choice of plans. This also contributes to the ranks of the uninsured. [*2bweymc, *bqpgx7y, *l7kab9] It also removes any financial incentives for maintaining one’s health to save money.
• Monopolization of insurance coverage is not the only monopoly in healthcare. Doctors and other healthcare workers are also a monopoly. Besides limiting immigrant doctors from getting American accreditation, the AMA has created a cartel over healthcare manpower, and as with any monopoly, without competition prices remain artificially high to become a doctor and to perform as a doctor. [clzw5j5, 7fzcbvz] Remember our link from above about doctors going broke.
• Government regulations and price controls are causing drug shortages that naturally drive up prices, while stockpiling and black markets exacerbate the problems. Patients are literally dying because of this over-regulation. [*3q636pp]
• Illegal aliens are a huge ongoing, mandatory cost. [*b9xs7r] If you don’t think this is going on around the country it is time for you to wake up, American neighbor. The cost is so high dozens of hospitals are simply closing because of the burden. [*pr9or9f] Incidentally, the job losses due to these closures are also expense increases to society that can be attributed to the government mandated healthcare system, but won’t directly show up in their numbers. Price controls also decrease availability: [*6zwyn97]
• Emergency wards by law are mandated to treat walk-ins for free if they cannot pay and have no coverage. This naturally means their healthcare costs much more than those with coverage who normally go to their doctor for most medical problems (much cheaper for the system than going to the Emergency Service). This also encourages overuse of Emergency Services for even trivial problems, causing longer wait times for everyone and more cost for those who do actually pay.
• It is often stated that Canadian healthcare costs much less than American healthcare. This is a misnomer because of unseen and unaccounted for factors. Canadian costs are set per procedure. Developing new treatments is very expensive and America leads the world in healthcare innovation and the purchase of it. [ygnzh4t] Canada benefits from that American innovation while having to pay little for its development. In Canada if a higher quality, but more expensive procedure is desired it is often denied, and the patient cannot make up the difference through private insurance or cash, whereas in America before Obamacare, patients had the choice to pay more for higher quality procedures. Also, hidden healthcare costs are high in Canada because of excessive wait times. The costs of under or non-performance at work due to these longer wait times are huge costs on employers and the economy, not to mention the individual patients who are laid up (again not directly accounted as healthcare costs, but real nonetheless). These are the hidden factors that hide the truly MASSIVE cost of universal healthcare in Canada. And if you think universal means everything is included, you can forget that too. Drugs are not included except when in the hospital. Dental is not included. Neither is eye care or ear care. If you need lab work, x-rays, massage or chiropractic treatment, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, senior care, disabled care, etc. most is paid out-of-pocket or with supplemental insurance, if available. They don’t include these additional costs in the cross border comparisons either. Neither included are the costs for many Canadians getting expensive treatments in the U.S. or elsewhere around the world because they are not available in Canada, or because the wait times are too long. [*lbbnmjy] Factoring in all of these hidden costs actually makes Canadian universal healthcare much more expensive than American healthcare prior to Obamacare.
• Bankruptcies caused by excessive medical expenses have long been a problem with an American healthcare system based on government meddling that drives up costs in all areas. However, there is a claim that medical bankruptcies would become a thing of the past if America were to adopt a universal healthcare system similar to Canada’s. Wrong. Up to 2005 bankruptcy laws were too dissimilar between the two countries to allow an accurate comparison, but were then reformed to be quite similar, allowing a direct comparison. In a Fraser Institute study of the years 2006 and 2007 (2008 was ignored due to the housing bubble meltdown in the U.S. that did not happen in Canada, and would skew the results) found that in fact, medical bankruptcies were higher in Canada for both years. [*7pvbccq, 8344fh9] Of course, we have already witnessed that universal healthcare does not mean that the government pays for everything – far from it. It just means that there is more regulation and even higher related costs. The more the government meddling, the higher the costs, and the more the victims.
• Massachusetts is the only state that has a healthcare system comparable to Canada’s. Unsurprisingly average per person monthly premiums are by far the most expensive of the fifty states, over twice as much as the American average. Yet, hospitals can’t afford to stay open. [p8uxm7c, coof5bu] Additionally, Boston has by far the the longest wait times to schedule a family doctor’s or specialist’s appointment of 15 metro areas surveyed across the country. [o35zfsf, pmx7vcb] Believe me, American neighbor, you do not want universal healthcare. The only thing universal about it is failure.
So, there are literally a dozen solid reasons that American healthcare costs previous to Obamacare were grossly inflated – all solely due to government meddling. Not one has to do with a problem of the free market. Every reason was a result of government regulation and manipulation of the healthcare marketplace – progressive-fascism.ca
• More government = more cost
The above chart illustrates that more government in healthcare (Obamacare) equals higher costs. President Obama promised that this chart would be overwhelmingly blue. But as horrible as it looks right now (October, 2013), using the Canadian experience as a reference, just wait a few years and this chart will instead be overwhelmingly red.af
• Dentistry as an example of free market healthcare
Think Dentistry. It is not covered by Canada’s “universal” healthcare system, so consumers are left to fend for themselves in the free market. So they either purchase private insurance coverage or pay out-of-pocket. In Edmonton where I live, there are 43 Yellow pages devoted to Dentists and Denturists in a metropolitan area of only 800,000 population! Lots of competition – lots of choice for consumers. People seem to have pretty nice teeth in Edmonton. How can that be possible without government involvement? [/sarcasm] Think about this: How often is the “high cost” of going to the dentist in the news? Never. How often are there news stories about people “falling through” the dental market cracks? Never. How often does one read about dental care “rationing”? Never. That’s the free market at work. Dentistry is the most reliable, timely and cost-effective healthcare there is – all without the government. Actually, it is because the government stays out of it.
If you want to decrease the cost of American healthcare, American neighbor, the obvious answer is nothing like Obamacare, which would only magnify government involvement, driving up costs and driving down quality and availability, [6bqrkbr, *l3no5ee] but instead reduce government interference in the healthcare marketplace (and reduce litigation awards). The free market is where your self-interest lies, American neighbor. As a Canadian with supposedly “free” universal healthcare let me sternly warn you: If you think American healthcare is expensive now, wait until it is “free” like mine.ag
• ’46 million without health insurance’
Another mantra that the liberal media filter loves to report that has been around for years is the supposed over 40 million people in America without health insurance (in 2007 the number was 46 million). Of course we were scolded that this claim was the primary reason for the need of Obamacare, but like all liberal mantras this is nothing more than a noble lie that only requires liberals to play stupid and repeat it like an automaton (both of which they are very good at). Try a Google search for >”46 million Americans without healthcare”< and >”46 million Americans without health coverage”< and >”46 million Americans without health insurance”<. You’ll get hundreds of thousands of results, but every single website that makes the claim that there are “46 million Americans without healthcare” are either terribly ignorant or alpha liberals. The number comes from the Census Bureau, and with a little work can be dissected. [*3xgp5pt]
First of all, over 9 million are non-Americans. For whatever reason they do not purchase health insurance, it is certainly not the concern of the American taxpayer to subsidize these non-citizens. So now we are down to 37 million. Over 10 million Americans were covered and didn’t realize it, or qualified to be covered by existing programs but had not applied. This brings the total down to 27 million. Another block of 10 million Americans could afford health insurance if they wished, but chose not to, and another segment of 5 million are termed the “invincibles”, young, single adults who prefer to spend their money elsewhere. That leaves about 12 million Americans without health insurance for undetermined reasons – a far cry from the 46 million mantra of liberals. So without spending an additional dime we have already cut the amount Americans unaccounted for by 74%! And liberals think that the only way to deal with this 3% of the population is for the government to completely take over 100% of the American healthcare system? Seems like a huge over-reaction to me, American neighbor. What about you?
Update: Isn’t this interesting? Obamacare has illustrated that in fact, there are very few without health insurance who are demanding it: [*k3hnpum] It seems that my estimate of 12 million is much too large by a factor of three. [*luyq9ah]ah
• Americans liked their health care prior to Obamacare
Americans have been propagandized by liberals for decades that the healthcare system is broken, so it was not at all surprising that in 2006 54% of Americans polled said that they were dissatisfied “about health care in the country as a whole”. [33sjxt]  And it was no surprise that 80% were dissatisfied with the “total cost of health care”. And again it is no surprise that only 4% found little problem with “the number of Americans who have no health insurance”. All of these answers are based on the average American’s perception of their healthcare system as described by liberals, but remember, Americans have been propagandized for decades that the system is bad. So how can we really know whether Americans are satisfied with their healthcare system? Answer: Ask them about their own personal experience.
With a question about Americans’ personal experience the liberal propaganda is of lesser consequence, so when Americans with healthcare coverage were asked whether they thought it was good or not, 88% replied that it was either good or excellent (this was before Obamacare), and 93% were satisfied with the healthcare that they received! This puts a totally new perspective on the problem, does it not, American neighbor? In fact there does not seem to really be a problem – only a perceived problem. We have already seen that only 3% of Americans are chronically uncovered by some sort insurance or plan, and now we can see that only 12% with insurance or a plan find their coverage not so good or poor (and this 12% number is probably inflated because of the influence of liberal propaganda – the fact that only 7% were dissatisfied with the quality of healthcare that their policies provided suggests this). Compare that to Canada where 38% (more than five times as many) are not happy with the healthcare they receive from their universal healthcare system (which includes the opposite propaganda that we have the “best healthcare system in the world” – what a joke!), and the American system prior to Obamacare does not look nearly as bad as Americans have been told. [m9lj69e] So moving toward an increasingly government-run system would NOT be such a good idea, don’t you think, American neighbor? In fact, I can guarantee you that under Obamacare these numbers will get worse, not better. Indeed one study found that “only 2.3 percent of Americans are both uninsured and very dissatisfied with the quality of the medical care that they receive” prior to Obamacare. [kpj2u6] I doubt that you could find just about anything that would not have at least a few percent of users that were not satisfied with it. Try a Google search for >iPhone dissatisfaction< and you will find results in the hundreds of thousands. A 2.3% dissatisfied rate hardly seems a reasonable reason for the American government to completely takeover the healthcare system. I could solve the problem and save money to boot. Simply remedy all of the above noted reasons for the high cost of American healthcare. Do that and virtually everyone will be able to afford decent private healthcare insurance, and you’d see that 88% satisfaction rate jump to 98%!ai
• Imagine if the government made all smartphones
There is a simple reason Americans are personally satisfied with the healthcare system without Obamacare, American neighbor. It is, simply put, the best healthcare system in the world, despite the government meddling. Myths about high infant mortality and low life expectancy are just that – myths. For instance, comparing one country’s infant mortality to another is difficult because of varying measurement standards, but when these variations are accounted for, America ranks among the top four countries in the world. Life expectancy numbers in regard to healthcare are skewed by including violent deaths, which when excluded places America at the number one spot. This is confirmed by comparing cancer survival rates, where America again ranks number one in the world. (Ignore the cost assertions in this column – the author did not seem to take into account virtually any of the items listed above in our examination of American and Canadian healthcare system costs. He would not be able to find even one extreme lefty in Canada that would agree to increase spending by “one-fifth”. In absolute terms, his comparison between countries is irrelevant – the proper comparison is between government controlled healthcare and a free market system.) [83m2xmp]
Imagine how good American healthcare could be if it was truly a free-market system with real competition, American neighbor. Competition would produce companies with the best record of curing and maintaining their customers being rewarded with more customers, while the companies with poor records would fall by the wayside. Competition would bring about increased quality and price competition, significantly lowering costs overall. Now look at the system today, where every excellent company is hamstrung by government regulation and restrictions, and every mediocre company is propped up by a system that treats everyone the same. Now imagine if smartphones were produced with the same government meddling and restrictions in an Obamacare type of system. The government would call them geniusphones supposedly capable of teleportation, mind reading and accurately predicting the stock market – yeah, right! But they would in fact all be dumbphones that cost a thousand bucks each with mandated plans at five hundred dollars per month. Even Barack Obama’s own cousin doesn’t buy it: [*6qlvmt3]aj
• Deprogramming Liberalism Liars of the Year Award
[hushed anticipation] [spotlights] [announcer] “And the Deprogramming Liberalism Liars of the Year Award for 2009 is … [drumroll] … PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year ‘death panel’ editorial board!” [tremendous applause!] (Attn: The “death panel” reference is meant as a metaphor for “the editors of PolitiFact.com” in regard to their willingness to withhold proper treatment and allow the truth to die.) [*lp4t95, *y94y8tu] If you Google >palin “lie of the year”< [247bvm9] you will get hundreds of thousands of results. Clearly it was a big media and blog hit, so congratulations are in order to the liberal website politifact.com for presenting a five alarm “pants on fire” liberalism of their own invention as their 2009 Lie of the Year. Of course they claimed that Sarah Palin’s “death panel” comment on her Facebook page was a lie, but in fact the real lies were PolitiFact’s portrayal of the relevant facts, what Sarah Palin meant, and their own convenient lies of omission. Here is what Sarah Palin wrote on her Facebook page:
~The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.~ [mwhkke]
Politifact seems to have a very shallow understanding of the English language, having never understood the alternative uses of quotation marks, and thus apparently concluding that they can only be used for direct quotations. They insist:
~We have read all 1,000-plus pages of the Democratic bill and examined versions in various committees. There is no panel in any version of the health care bills in Congress…~
In fact, it is quite obvious that Palin used “death panel” with quotation marks as a metaphor for rationed healthcare to be decided by bureaucrats or doctors directed by bureaucrats. In punctuation this is known as “to set off words”. From Wikipedia on quotation marks:
~In addition to conveying a neutral attitude and to call attention to a neologism, or slang, or special terminology (also known as jargon), quoting can also indicate words or phrases that are descriptive but unusual, colloquial, folksy, startling, humorous, metaphoric, or contain a pun:~ [my emphasis]ak
• Three types of lies
According to PolitiFact there are three kinds of lies. There are the two that actually exist, and then there is their own made up definition of a lie which they used to indict Sarah Palin. The first type of legitimate lie is the full-blown malicious lie where a known untrue statement is attempted to be passed off as true – the playing stupid lie so familiar to liberals. The second kind of lie is a genuine mistake where a statement supposedly portraying a truth is actually untrue, but where there is no malicious intent. The third type of lie that PolitiFact has made up out thin air is hardly a lie at all. According to PolitiFact it is when someone like Sarah Palin projects what they believe will happen in the future and PolitiFact disagrees. In fact, calling this a lie is a real stretch (and very paranoid). It is really only a disagreement of opinions. This is like me looking at the sky and projecting that it will rain tomorrow. Politifact then disagrees based on what they see in the sky, and they claim my projection is a lie, and then proclaim it the “Lie of the Year”. Pretty weak for a Lie of the Year, don’t you think, American neighbor? Especially when you consider who said it. In 2009 Sarah Palin had no official position or power to do anything. So let’s look at someone who did. In 2007 Barack Obama said:
~ “When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it.”~ [c3b8ju3]
The clear implication of this statement was that President Obama would uphold his promise of a more open government by allowing citizens to express their views publicly and to the President himself on a final bill for a full five days between the time he received a bill and the time he would plan to sign it. In 2009 this metastasized into a full blown malicious lie in his very first piece of major legislation. The stimulus bill was passed by the House and Senate on the evening of Friday February 13, got to the President’s desk on Monday February 16, and was signed by the President on Tuesday February 17. This was no accident. We since have seen a pattern develop where he did exactly the same thing with the Obamacare legislation in March of 2010. With no Republicans in either the House or the Senate voting for the final bill, and with numerous polls indicating a public majority disapproved of the bill, President Obama essentially gave America the finger and signed the bill only two days after the House passed it. [yeqbu4h] But this blatant, malicious lie by the President was never even considered for the PolitiFact Lie of the Year award. Here’s another whopper from Obama speaking about Hillary Clinton healthcare proposal:
~ “But, she mandates that everybody buy health care. She’d have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it.”~ [6xa7ynp]
Of course the individual mandate became the centerpiece of Obamacare in 2009, but again PolitiFact didn’t consider it for their Lie of the Year award. So who exactly is it that is considered more important than the President himself to the discourse in America by PolitiFact? Private citizens like Sarah Palin, Orly Taitz and Glenn Beck. Very telling – and a huge 800 pound gorilla about obvious bias.al
• PolitiFact doesn’t know the meaning of ‘euthanasia’
PolitiFact frames their accusation of Sarah Palin’s supposed lie with a deliberately literal interpretation of “euthanasia”, insisting that her use of quotation marks around “death panel” could only mean she was making a direct quote. [Lie #1] But defining Palin’s “death panel” reference narrowly as “euthanasia” is a lie itself. From dictionary.com euthanasia means:
~Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.~
Palin said, “…whether they are worthy of health care.” This does not equate to “euthanasia”. Euthanasia is primarily concerned with the suffering of the patient – “mercy killing”. That is NOT what she meant by “death panel” and it is hard to imagine that anyone could be so stupid (or paranoid) as to think that she did (or were they just playing stupid?). Where the hell did they get such a convoluted idea? PolitiFact actually thinks Sarah Palin defined “death panel” as deciding whether a patient should be mercifully put down?!? This is about as nutty as one could get! She was talking about withholding healthcare due to bureaucratic reasoning like rationing and expense. She said “ration care” and then referred to the “sick, the elderly, and the disabled”. So is it PolitFacts’ belief that ALL sick, elderly and disabled people are on death’s doorstep?!? They must think this in order to narrowly define “death panel” as only about end of life situations concerning euthanasia. (This is so nonsensical – who can take these people seriously?) Although she definitely had end of life decisions also in mind, she included simple rationed care as applicable to those where death is not necessarily an issue, obviously referring to non-life threatening rationed care when she used her infant son Trig with Down Syndrome as an example. I have seen liberal comments to the effect that her use of Trig as an end of life example shows just how twisted she is, but this line of thinking just shows how presumptive (and irrational) liberals are – they have the proverbial cart before horse. She obviously used Trig as an example because she was actually illustrating non-life threatening rationed care. Even if Trig’s healthcare would be rationed he still might live another one hundred years, so she could not be just limiting her statement to end of life issues – duh! And what?!? Does PolitiFact also think that she also meant that wheelchair and bed bound patients would have to get out of their wheelchairs and beds to literally “stand” before a death panel?!? Double duh!! Again, who can take these people seriously? Anyone who could agree with PolitiFact’s interpretation must be waaaayyyy smarter than me – because I certainly can’t see any rationality in their claims.am
• PolitiFact uses misquote in their ‘Lie of the Year’ award
Notice that Sarah Palin used the term in the singular, “death panel”. But PolitiFact in their headline morphed it into the plural, “PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year: ‘Death panels'”, and in the story an additional ten times as “death panels”. Again, for a group that insists on such literality and bills itself as a ‘fact check’ website one would think they could get this right. Even Wikipedia has it listed as “death panels”. So is this just a simple mistake? It begs the question of the level of competence of the editors at PolitiFact and Wikipedia, but I don’t think it was a mistake. After all, right beside the headline and the story quotes, and in the story itself they have the verbatim quote from Sarah Palin’s Facebook page that specifically says “will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’…” – single case. [Lie #2] In fact this is the second PolitiFact lie. Or maybe they are trying to claim that their “death panels” is not a literal quote but a metaphor for “death panel”. [Excuse me while a take moment to wait for my head to stop spinning!] As a singular phrase “death panel” obviously makes a much stronger case for a metaphor. In fact, in the singular case it can ONLY mean it is a metaphor. If we are to believe it is literal then they must be claiming that Sarah Palin was saying that there was only one literal death panel to deal with millions of American patients each year. This would really be getting absurd to the ‘nth degree! Because Sarah Palin may have used after the fact the term “death panels” as a plural since the media became saturated with it, does not excuse PolitiFact’s change, because their award is literally for the context of her Facebook quote which says “death panel” in the singular as a metaphor. You would think that a fact check site that makes an award like “Lie of the Year” could get their quote of the alleged lie accurate. But then again, “death panels” is so much easier to spin in to a supposed lie.an
• Sarah Palin explained ‘death panel’ as a metaphor for ‘rationed care’
Notice also that Sarah Palin also put quotes around “level of productivity in society”. Now think about this for half a second, American neighbor. Somebody on a deathbed is not productive. Some disabled people never contribute anything productive to society beyond their presence. So was she being literal here too? Quite obviously not. [Lie #3] That PolitiFact chose to ignore this is their first lie of omission – or more evidence that they aren’t very smart – or both.
While it may be true that the term “death panel” may have later morphed into a literal and plural term in the Blackshirts orthodox media and in ideological arguments on the internet, it is clear that Palin’s original use to “ration care” as attributable to Trig and the “sick, the elderly, and the disabled” was as a metaphor – and supposedly it was Sarah Palin’s original use that PolitiFact is accusing of being a lie, so other subsequent uses are irrelevant. So right off the bat it is evident that PolitiFact’s own “death panel” editorial board which decided that Sarah Palin committed the biggest lie of the year, was totally incompetent and unable to do a simple parse of the English language. (Oh – and so that these PolitiFact geniuses don’t accuse me of accusing them of literally being a “death panel” in the last sentence, let me be clear – IT IS A METAPHOR YOU IGNORAMUSES!!!)ao
• Sarah Palin speaks of the future – PolitiFact morphs it into the present
But if we are going to be oh so literal let’s start with Politifact’s own first headline:
~Sarah Palin falsely claims Barack Obama runs a ‘death panel’~
[Lie #4] This is a flat out lie. (Oh, and look at that – they managed to get the case correct in the first column. Gold star!) PolitiFact claims that Sarah Palin was accusing President Obama of currently running a death panel when she made the statement. So before the reader even begins reading their explanation PolitiFact posits a deceptive exaggeration in the reader’s mind to soften them up for their further lies (oh yes – there are many more to come, American neighbor). There is no indication of any kind that Sarah Palin “claims Barack Obama runs a ‘death panel'” – present tense. She was obviously speaking of potential future events based on the “promise” from Democrats that “government health care system will reduce the cost of health care” (although she certainly could have spoken in the present tense and would have still been accurate as you will see, American neighbor). Note that Sarah Palin appealed to an authority to base her argument on, “as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost.” PolitiFact responds:
~She said that the Democrats plan to reduce health care costs by simply refusing to pay for care.~
How convenient that they left out the part where she based her statement on the authority of “economist Thomas Sowell”. If they have a quarrel with Sowell’s assertion shouldn’t they have taken that up first, with Thomas Sowell? But they completely ignore him as if he is not even included in her statement. [Lie #5] This is a deliberate lie of omission (remember, PolitiFact is big on literalism).
Update December, 2014: In October, 2009 Jonathan Gruber, the Obmacare economic architect admitted in a policy brief that the program had no cost controls, so the only way to keep costs from skyrocketing would be to refuse to pay for care – just what Sarah Palin warned would happen. Gruber had already alerted the White House of this scenario months before Obamacare was to be implemented. President Obama did not tell the American people of this or apologize to Sarah Palin. Indeed, he continued to lie that costs would come down and that there would be no death panel to reduce cost overruns. [pf6vzbs] Will PolitiFact now apologize to Sarah Palin and retract their Lie of the Year award against her and instead award it to President Obama?ap
• Obama administration spoke of need for ‘death panel’
And only two paragraphs later comes the next PolitiFact lie [Lie #6]:
~We agree with Palin that such a system would be evil. But it’s definitely not what President Barack Obama or any other Democrat has proposed.~
This is another flat-out lie. President Obama’s own health policy adviser, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (brother to Obama’s one time Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel) at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget and member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research espoused just such a system called “The Complete Lives System” in January 31, 2009. [5u6f3d8, nlxape, bpmpznq] Under the title “Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions” he proposes this as a system to alleviate what he in part describes as “an increased supply would necessitate redirection of important resources, and allocation decisions would still be necessary.” This directly relates to Sowell’s contention that government would “simply refuse to pay the cost” or in Emanuel’s words “redirection of important resources”. As a solution Emanuel proposes, “When the worst-off can benefit only slightly, while the better-off could benefit greatly, allocating to the better off is often justifiable.” This is a “redirection of important resources”. Emanuel believes in “communitarianism” where the needs of the individual patient are of lesser consideration than the system as a whole. In 1996 he wrote, “services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.” A NY Post story tells of another Obama adviser, Dr. David Blumenthal:
~Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they’re “associated with longer waits” and “reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices” (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he calls it “debatable” whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. (Ask a cancer patient, and you’ll get a different answer. Delay lowers your chances of survival.)~ [y8joa9r]
And Barack Obama said as much speaking of his own grandmother (from a Bloomberg article):
~Obama said “you just get into some very difficult moral issues” when considering whether “to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill. […] “That’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues,” he said in the April 14 interview. “The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health- care bill out here.”~ [6627yce]
And Obama has said the same sort of thing more than once as you will see in this video: [*lec8u4] And White House budget director Peter Orszag claimed health care budget savings based on denial of expensive treatments over less pricey ones, known as pay for quality, which would deny the doctor and/or patient the right of choice with a possible settling for inferior care decided on cost:
~ “[T]he scoring largely does not take into account this evolution toward paying for quality, which I think in this decade would begin to pay off.”~ [y3qujfp]
This would be determined by the Independent Payment Advisory Board, again explained by Peter Orszag in this video. [bokeqmy] Clearly these Democrats were proposing exactly what Sarah Palin was warning about and what Politifact denied any Democrats had said.aq
• Bureaucrats decide which treatments are ‘worthy’
PolitiFact insists on compounding their lies with another one [Lie #7]:
~Palin also may have also [sic] jumped to conclusions about the Obama administration’s efforts to promote comparative effectiveness research. Such research has nothing to do with evaluating patients for “worthiness.” Rather, comparative effectiveness research finds out which treatments work better than others.~
Although this is nothing more than a rabbit trail, as seen above, the two Obama advisors directly relate patient treatment to patient “worthiness”. In fact just such legislation was inserted in the stimulus bill known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. [254stwz] The House bill also contained Evidence-based Guidelines that would necessitate bureaucratic decision makers to decide which treatments would be made available or billable. [cr5tqg3] Many treatments now available would be excluded based on a supposedly objective scientific studies, but these studies would be mostly conducted by biased drug and medical products producers. Small players would automatically be rejected, not being able to fund expensive studies for their products. This would greatly limit a patient’s choices for treatment and the ability of startup medical suppliers and alternative suppliers to compete. (Not to mention that over half of scientific study conclusions are later found to be in doubt, superceded or completely rejected anyway. [25nbdgv, c94hl6])ar
• Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies
Another lying type of tactic used by PolitiFact was to appeal to outside authority in order to present Palin’s “death panel” term as extreme [Lie #8]:
~History professor Ian Dowbiggin, who has written several books on medical history, euthanasia and eugenics, said he had never heard the term before Palin used it. He said the phrase invokes images of Nazi Germany, which denied life-saving care to people who were not deemed useful enough to broader society.~
We have already seen that Palin’s original use of “death panel” was a metaphor so his point is actually ridiculous and extreme in of itself. The thought that a government would formally name a bureaucratic decision system based on rationing a “death panel” and that Sarah Palin would think they had is either insulting to a reader’s intelligence or complimentary to a lack of intelligence (playing stupid) of self-proclaimed “experts”. No wonder “he had never heard the term before Palin used it” – duh! again. Apparently you have to be as dumb as a PolitiFact Lie of the Year “death panel” editorial board member to think this might happen. (Again, to you PolitiFact editorial board member geniuses – I was using “death panel” in the previous sentence as a METAPHOR! Please don’t make this your new Lie of the Year thinking I am accusing you of gassing Tea Partiers – Sheesh!)as
• More PolitiFact lies
Something else PolitiFact conveniently ignores are the statistics on denial of service. [4747ou] Of the eight largest health insurers guess which one has the highest rate of denial of care? Yep, the only government insurer – Medicare. The private insurers’ average of all claims denied is 3.89%. Medicare denies 6.85% of all claims, close to double the rate of private insurers, and Medicare is the only insurer who has as a reason:
~These are non-covered services because this is not deemed a ‘medical necessity’ by the payer.~
Seeing as Medicare is specifically for the elderly, you don’t think this ever has anything to do with end of life issues, do you, American neighbor? Fully 20% of all Medicare denial of service orders are for “non-covered services”. [Lie #9] Yet another convenient lie of omission by PolitiFact. If anything Sarah Palin was a little late to the game. It seems as if rationing was already well entrenched in federal legislation, or at least the application of it.
Republican amendment proposals to prohibit rationing were voted down three times by the Democrats. [mpxaxa] If there was no threat of rationing in the bill and rationing was never intended, why wouldn’t Democrats have enthusiastically endorsed these Republican proposals? [Lie #10] And again no mention by PolitiFact – another lie of omission.
I won’t even bother with the Senate subsequently dropping legislative wording that amounted to exactly what Sarah Palin was describing. At this point it is irrelevant to our discussion except to point out that the Senate’s new version has a provision demanding a supermajority of 67 votes to remove its rationing provision. [6b9zq4u, ybtjkbf] If it wasn’t rationing why the extra provision to make it so hard to remove? [Lie #11] And yet one more PolitiFact lie of omission.
It is clear that after eleven lies in just two articles that the “death panel” editors of PolitiFact (see mass murder accusation disclaimers above) are the blatant alpha liberal liars in this story. Did they actually do any research other than to find an irrelevant ‘expert’ to quote? And you would think that a supposed fact check website would have an editor to check their fact checkers so that they would at least correctly quote Sarah Palin, but I guess everyone was too busy making up lies to notice that later in the first article they quote her as saying “death board” instead of “death panel”. I guess sloppiness goes hand in hand with lying, or maybe they were using “board” as a metaphor (at least they got the singular case correct – applause!). [/sarcasm]at
• Lots more bureaucracy – less healthcare providers
And really, American neighbor, you don’t have to have an intellect worthy of Einstein to connect the dots here. Obamacare would add tens of millions of new Americans (and additional illegal aliens?) to health care roles, but the amount of doctors will not change (in fact 45% have claimed they will quit if Obamacare is implemented [nmyxkd]). There is already a looming shortage, so how will Obamacare solve this without rationing? And who do PolitiFact think will make those rationing decisions in the end, doctors? No, bureaucrats will – ahem – or also known as “Obama’s death panel” (doctors may be the ones discussing the “options” with patients, but bureaucrats will have the doctors on a short leash). Sheesh! We haven’t even discussed a shortage of beds or a restriction of government money (the government is broke – they just won’t admit it yet), or funding of a giant new bureaucracy that promises to dwarf all other bureaucracies (111 new federal boards, bureaucracies, commissions, and programs! [yfwtor4] Yikes! This may be beyond progressive-fascism and be simply plain fascism!) Even liberal economist and NY Times columnist Paul Krugman recognizes the necessity for “Obama’s death panel” in Obamacare, substituting the name “advisory panels” (ignore his straw man about critics supposedly claiming that “death panels” (Krugman’s term) wouldn’t reduce costs – that’s the whole point – sheesh again! Watch the video here: [*ydn9h8x] And then Krugman contradicts himself a few months later in this video: [*68hdn8t, bhcnzga]
And Obama has now appointed a “death panel” czar, Dr. Donald Berwick, who has said:
~ “It’s not a question of whether we will ration care, it is whether we will ration with our eyes open. […] The hallmarks of proper financial management in a system are government policies, purchasing contracts, or market mechanisms that lead to a cap on total spending, with strictly limited year-on-year growth targets. [That way] rational collective action overrid[es] individual self-interest.”~ [2w2fosh] (Another one with a picture of John Dewey on his desk.)
That is just what Sarah Palin was describing with her “death panel” metaphor. Obama was so afraid of the controversial positions of Berwick he actually used a Recess Appointment to avoid the publicity that Senate confirmation hearings would have inevitably produced. [2bms26l] And then there is the inconvenient little fact that Berwick himself would never have to worry about rationed care proposed for you, American neighbor. [9sm3fjh]
Rush Limbaugh’s chest pain hospitalization poignantly illustrates the danger of placing liberals in charge of quality of life and end of life decisions. Reading the comments after news stories and blogs on Limbaugh’s medical problem in Hawaii, which thankfully was not an end of life situation, liberals over and over expressed their desire for Rush to die (same thing happened with Dick Cheney), and supposedly some liberals like these are going to be in charge of Americans’ medical decisions?!? Heaven help you if you are a conservative and they find out! More progressive-fascism.
If you want an ultimate example of a government-run healthcare “death panel” at work, here is one right from my very own province and city (for shame…): [*ydz4p5y]au
• A substitute for the PolitiFact’s ‘Lie of the Year’ award
Oh, and looky here! Finally, in the last paragraph of their award article PolitiFact quotes Sarah Palin again:
~ “The term I used to describe the panel making these decisions should not be taken literally,” said Palin. The phrase is “a lot like when President Reagan used to refer to the Soviet Union as the ‘evil empire.’ He got his point across. He got people thinking and researching what he was talking about. It was quite effective. Same thing with the ‘death panels.’ I would characterize them like that again, in a heartbeat.”~
Of course they could have included this that preceded it:
~ “To me, while reading that section of the bill, it became so evident that there would be a panel of bureaucrats who would decide on levels of health care, decide on those who are worthy or not worthy of receiving some government-controlled coverage . Since health care would have to be rationed if it were promised to everyone, it would therefore lead to harm for many individuals not able to receive the government care. That leads, of course, to death.”~ [2wfzjxd]
So there you have her explanation for her Facebook quote. Obviously, what I have illustrated in this essay jives with it quite well. And yup, Sarah Palin certainly achieved her objective to get “people thinking and researching” about what she was talking about – everybody except PolitiFact it seems (well, and also the Blackshirts in the orthodox media and liberals throughout the country). Not bad for someone who liberals continually insist is an irrelevant hayseed.
OH WAIT! Hold the presses! DUH! I think I just realized what PolitiFact actually means by Lie of the Year. The award obviously isn’t for a phrase they think is a lie – it is for a phrase that they can make up the most lies about and still get liberals to believe (that alpha-beta thingy). This whole award is nothing more than one giant metaphor on the value of fact check websites and just how gullible liberals can be. It’s a nudge-nudge, wink-wink metaphor within a metaphor. Brilliant! [/sarcastic praise] So once again, congratulations to PolitiFact for winning the initial Deprogramming Liberalism Liars of the Year Award for 2009! [Standing ovation, horns, hoots and whistles!] Here is a meticulous article documenting the liberal bias of PolitiFact: [*d7vdohg]
[If PolitiFact is really as interested in the truth as they proclaim, I would welcome an inquiry from them about publishing this section of Nuclear Counterarguments on their website with a prominent link to it from their award page labelled as a rebuttal, but of course, if they are really concerned about the truth they would take down their award page and replace that same link with a complete explanation, retraction and apology to Sarah Palin, and to their readers for repeatedly lying to them. However it seems unlikely, considering they did it again in 2010 and [update] 2012: [*65k5czq, *atoea5n]]
One last thing. (800 pound gorilla alert!) The new head of the Democrat National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz had this to say about Representative Paul Ryan’s budget plan:
~ “This plan would literally be a death trap for some seniors.”~ [3jgupyk]
Now obviously she wasn’t speaking metaphorically – notice the “literally” in her statement, and this isn’t some unemployed state politician – she’s a House Representative and the new head of the DNC who will actually vote on the plan in congress. So does Ryan’s plan include setting up bear traps at seniors homes? Nope – I couldn’t find that anywhere in the plan (metaphor alert! you PolitiFact dummkopfs!). Think PolitiFact will consider her statement for 2011 Lie of the Year? Naw – I don’t think so either, American neighbor. They didn’t even consider it for lie of the day when she said it. The “death panel” phrase is cited in 32 different web pages on politifact.com, but “death trap” not even once. Can you say, double standard, American neighbor? How about liberal bias? Or Blackshirts?av
• Moral of the essay – don’t trust the orthodox media on healthcare
How many of those 208 million search results for >”death panel”< do you think were orthodox media sites that concluded with something like, “But when researched in context, Sarah Palin’s metaphoric claim comes across as thoroughly legitimate, whereas PolitiFact’s portrayal comes across as disingenuous.”? No, I doubt there were many either, American neighbor. The orthodox media launderers are like the Mouth of Sauron from The Lord of the Rings, voluntary slaves who speak on behalf of their master through the dark force of the one ring – liberalism. [*32ylxyr] They are little more than megaphones who glee through hideous, toothy grins at the utopia dystopia they help rue on America.
What is the moral of this essay, American neighbor? Don’t trust the orthodox media to tell you what’s what with American healthcare – all they want you to know are liberal noble lies. You didn’t actually think that the orthodox liberal media didn’t know that “wither on the vine” was limited to bureaucratic management did you? And please… American neighbor, you didn’t actually think that the media didn’t know that Obamacare wasn’t about government rationing? Please tell me you are not still playing that stupid. What about our MCTE question where we discovered that lawyers are the real vultures in healthcare, with a 14% average profit margin? Isn’t it about time that something is done about this? How about knocking that down to the 3.3% average profits of the health insurance industry? The orthodox media trumpeted the PolitiFact Lie of the Year because they so desperately wanted it to be true. They are just as complicit in the lies as PolitiFact. And what about our other MCTE question: “Do you think more government healthcare provides you with more liberty to direct your own life, or less?” There is probably no other element in your life where your liberty to direct your life is more limited than by government interference in the healthcare system. The real issue is that government healthcare itself is one massive liberty “death panel” – progressive-fascism.aw
• Deprogramming lessons
Read this and watch your liberties disappear before your eyes if Obamacare would be fully implemented: [*7wa72jv] Then read about the real “death panel” here: [*75zaw2o] And now in 2013 Obamacare is working out to be so bad that even Barack Obama’a union buddies are turning on him. [*ovrlhss]
This whole essay is about the playing stupid principle: Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid. Every issue discussed would be a non-issue if liberals refused to play stupid about them. Thus proving: Self-interest and critical thinking are enemies of contemporary liberal groupthink. Of course there is this principle related to the “wither on the vine” statement: A contemporary conservative’s evil motives justify their destruction by any means necessary. And we have also learned that liberalism is the real problem with American healthcare: Contemporary liberalism is rife with unintended consequences. Included are numerous noble lies like insurance companies are gouging their customers, the high cost is a result of not enough government participation (that one is a riot!), of course the obligatory phantom 46 million without insurance, the belief that Americans were not satisfied with their healthcare prior to Obamacare, and that “death panel” was used by Sarah Palin because she is either diabolically evil or the dumbest person in the world (liberals just can’t seem to make up their minds on that one). Contemporary liberals embrace the strategy of the noble lie. Contemporary liberals employ chaos as a political strategy to destabilize society so that liberal solutions can appear more palatable. Of course the liberal solution to American healthcare is much, much more government interference because they believe: Contemporary liberalism views society as generally incompetent and in need of the guiding hand of a controlling government. and For its own good a resistant society must have utopian ideals forced upon it. Somehow utopia must be achieved: For contemporary liberals superficial rationalization is always the first and final element in their ideological line of thought. And let’s not forget the role of the first two liberal principles: Contemporary liberalism is a type of societal conditioning. Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism. Liberals have been conditioned to be so fearful about their own health that they are willing to voluntarily give up their own personal health decisions to some faceless bureaucrats – now that is paranoia!
Maybe for their Lie of the Year PolitiFact should have avoided an attempt at a Shakespearean dissection of “death panel” and instead stuck with something a little more Sesame Street, like the simple and obvious “3.6 million jobs saved or created”. Thanks for dragging yourself through this liberal healthcare quagmire, American neighbor. Gold star for perseverance.
But really, American neighbor, Sarah Palin is the liberal’s ultimate bogeyman. Liberals are scared to death of Sarah Palin. Freud would have a field day with the depth of compulsive paranoia that they display. We’ll explore this particular liberal paranoia in #16 Palinoia and the Dumbest Politician of Oll.
Update: Now in 2014 it has been confirmed that more than 100 veterans have died waiting for rationed care as a result of government-run healthcare at the VA – just a picture of things to come under Obamacare. [kvgh7bs]ax
• Deprogramming exercise
Instead of chasing after liberal nightmares generated by a couple of words like “death panel”, perhaps a little research into some free market healthcare alternatives might be more productive. [*kszl3o, *y8uzrz7, *ko2gtx9] Here’s another alternative: [*2adxnvk] In the mean time here is some good advice: [*ccvbhr8]ay
• Humor, sort-of
Now here is a man after my own chuckle:
Using the same statistical application as the Democrats to produce a number claiming “45,000 deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of health insurance” Hoven Institute for Studies Just as Valid as Studies Cited by Democrats has determined that “over 150,000 cancer deaths could be averted by not voting Democrat.” [*ygeaecj] This makes voting Democrat three times as deadly pertaining to cancer deaths as not having health insurance. By extrapolating this Democrat logic to include deaths by heart disease, auto accidents and falling out of airplanes I have determined that additional millions of American lives could be saved each year. Indeed, eliminating the Democrats number one priority for existence would save approximately 3,700 deaths per day in America. [*n9hlbov]
And who doesn’t enjoy lawyer jokes (besides lawyers I mean)? [*mvus5l]