Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 1:04 PM ET, 12/17/2010

The most effective and diabolical lie of the year

By Greg Sargent

One of the big stories of the day is that PolitiFact has now bestowed its much-coveted award for lie of the year on the idea that health reform constituted a "government takeover" of our health care system.

It's an excellent choice. But what specifically makes this such an effective lie?

The obvious reason is that it's catchy and packs a lot of fear-mongering into only two words. But the real key to it, I think, is that it's simultaneously very hard to challenge. As PolitiFact notes, conservatives and Republicans repeated the phrase hundreds of times, with little to no fact-checking from media figures:

The phrase proliferated in the media even after Democrats dropped the public option. In 2010 alone, "government takeover" was mentioned 28 times in the Washington Post, 77 times in Politico and 79 times on CNN. A review of TV transcripts showed "government takeover" was primarily used as a catchy sound bite, not for discussions of policy details.

In most transcripts we examined, Republican leaders used the phrase without being challenged by interviewers. For example, during Boehner's Jan. 31 appearance on Meet the Press, Boehner said it five times. But not once was he challenged about it.

In rare cases when the point was questioned, the GOP leader would recite various regulations found in the bill and insist that they constituted a takeover. But such followups were rare.

This is obviously a massive media failure. But at the same time, it's kind of understandable that the phrase often passed without challenge. After all, it doesn't sound like a factual statement. It sounds more like a characterization or an impression then a statement that's meant to be backed up by empirical evidence. It doesn't sound literal. It doesn't sound like an effort to describe empirically discernible reality.

And herein lies the beauty of this lie: Though the statement is in fact entirely false, it doesn't sound like a statement that's designed to be true in any meaningful sense. It shapes perceptions while eluding challenge. It's hard to rebut it by pointing to actual facts. The obvious rebuttal to it -- "no, health reform is not a government takeover" -- only serves to reinforce the original fearmongering.

Republicans know this. Indeed, when PolitiFact asked John Boehner spokesman Michael Steel to defend the repeated use of the phrase, he merely repeated it again, rejecting the idea that it's a lie by casting it as a a subjective claim:

"We believe that the job-killing ObamaCare law will result in a government takeover of health care. That's why we have pledged to repeal it, and replace it with common-sense reforms that actually lower costs."

Republicans are damn good at message discipline.

By Greg Sargent  | December 17, 2010; 1:04 PM ET
Categories:  Health reform, House GOPers, Political media  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Will GOP spending cuts kill Obama's reelection chances?
Next: Looks like Olympia Snowe will vote Yes on DADT repeal

Comments

It was The Big Lie. The Republicans learned well from Joseph Goebbels, and the Mythical "Liberal Media" never barked.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

"Republicans are damn good at message discipline."

Actually they have had many more form breaks than usual, what with trying to balance the interests of TP voters and corporate clients.

The problem is not that the media failed to stop Republican lies from turning into a dominant narrative. The problem was with the people who passed the law. What did they think, everyone was going to read it and make up their own minds?

The Democrats were too embarrassed to sell it, because of what it is; they simply could not sell it on its merits, so they could not take on the "government takeover" lie.

What could they say, "Government takeover? Are you joking? The industry took us over, then they took us to the woodshed! The medical industrial complex was tasked by us with reforming itself and we got paid to help." No they couldn't say that.


Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

It's actually a bit more sophisticated than that. I've heard several conservative friends repeat the following.

When they say "it will result in a government takeover," they are not directly calling PPACA a government takeover. They think it is set up to fail, because the penalty for violating the individual mandate is way too low, and that when it fails liberal Democrats will use the failure as an excuse to impose true government-run healthcare.

They can never explain how liberal Democrats would suddenly obtain the power to do anything at all, but plausibility is often irrelevant to conservative paranoia.

Posted by: dal20402 | December 17, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans answer to challenges like those in this article is always the equivalent of - we define the terms differently than you do and will repeat the new definition as a mantra often and repeatedly enough to convince people it is true.

Posted by: sauerkraut | December 17, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

For those who may not be familiar with the Propaganda tactics applied by Joseph Goebbels, as Minister of Propaganda for The Third Reich; here is a quote from him, that neatly captures what The Republicans now practice.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”.

"

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

How do you choose, when all that ever comes out of a republilcan's mouth is diabolical lies? This is how this particular one came about. From industry's mouth straight into republicans'.

" A former Republican Hill staffer closely involved in the battle over the health care plan e-mails that the case for the linguistic shift first emerged in February in research provided the GOP by the health insurance industry group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

AHIP focus groups from late February (whose findings appear in this document, provided by the former aide) found that voters like the idea of a “public” plan, and that the most negative term is a “government-run health insurance plan.”

A round of polling from AHIP in February and March confirmed that argument. “It is clear the most negative language to use when describing a ‘public plan’ is ‘a government-run health insurance plan,’” reads a presentation the group distributed, starting in March, to allies, Republican staff and opinion leaders and to conservative media, according to the former aide.

Sen. John Ensign was the first to pick up the talking point in a March 24 release blasting a “Government-Run ‘Public’ Health Insurance Plan.”

This is fairly significant because it once again reaffirms the existence of a messaging pipeline which stretches from the industry to the lobbyist to the lawmaker and to Fox — and not necessarily in that order. The effectiveness of this communication system was on full display during the health care debate, when Republicans went to the floor and literally read from the industry-sponsored critique of the health law and then again echoed their arguments about the causes of premium increases after the law passed."

Posted by: fiona5 | December 17, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Sheer, utter nonsense.

"politicfact" tries to prove that the message is a "lie" by being disingenuous. yeah, like that will work.

We are to believe that this isn't a take over because one professor said it wasn't. If that's good enough for Mr Sargent, then I pity him.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 17, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

amusing that skipsailing sees no need to explain what makes the "government takeover" claim true.

says it all right there

Posted by: Greg Sargent | December 17, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Skippy and Faux News know how to maintain The Big Lie.

For those who may not be familiar with the Propaganda tactics applied by Joseph Goebbels, as Minister of Propaganda for The Third Reich; here is a quote from him, that neatly captures what The Republicans now practice.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Maybe it starts with a two word reply: "you're lying".

Letting an assertion go unchallenged is what makes the "big lie" work.

Posted by: victor-ny | December 17, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

NO Mr Sargent, I don't think so. You have made a basic mistake in dialectics. Shame on you. Your soviet forebears must be turning in their dachas.

Proving that the statement is a lie is the duty of whoever made that assertion. It is not for me to prove them wrong, it is for them to prove themselves right.

As I noted, they did by rely on a statement from a single professor. If that suffices for you then you are more blinded by dogma than even I imagined.

I am amazed that you actually didn't understand this Mr Sargent. And perhaps I'm risking banishment, but it seems to me that this basic point of argument should have been shared with you at some point in your educational endeavors.

this is a complicated topic and we have the words of Mr Obama and many other prominent liberals concerning the ultimate goal, which is a government take over. It is amusing that you neglect to mention that. Kinda says it all, doesn't it?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 17, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Isn't that pretty much the point of your post, Greg, that the media never shifts the burden of proof to the GOP and the GOP is very good at establishing talking points that they can repeat over and over and which avoid creating for them any burden of proof... it is what they say it is. It was the same with "death panels" as well as many other Luntz inspired and Fox distributed slogans.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | December 17, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

yeah, greg, skippy is amusing! I agree.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 17, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

And right on time, skip proves my point again.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | December 17, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone else here relish the irony of Mr. Sargent's simplistic and generalized view of the opposition? Delicious. Admittedly, "government takeover" is a bit melodramatic, but while the self-appointed intellectual left is busy congratulating each other on how smart they are and bemoaning the fact that they were just ineffective in teaching dumb, rural Americans the "real plan," we mostly just sit back and laugh.

The simple fact, Mr. Sargent, is that MOST Americans don't feel like they should be paying for others' healthcare when a lack of personal responsibility seems to be preventing millions of these future recipients from paying for it themselves. The government takeover part refers to the strict regulation of insurance companies and the healthcare industry, reducing competition and privately-funded R&D, reducing quality and timeliness of care, and making the whole process even more expensive.

If the government plan succeeds in its current form, the private insurance industry as we now know it will eventually cease to exist. Then where will we be? The cow only has so much milk...

Posted by: benevolent9 | December 17, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"Maybe it starts with a two word reply: "you're lying"."

Well, that ends the conversation, which might be the point. But Mr. Obama says his enemies are on the extremes. He says we are supposed to find common ground and work outward from there. Republicans laughed, they realized you just give no common ground and then Obama has to come find some, so he can show how plan works. If by chance he finds a Republican here or there who will talk to him, they are off message and disavowed by the party.

This isn't about Godwin's Law, it isn't about a media failure, it is about the Democrats passing a really bad law and having no coherent way to sell it. Obama's desire to impose his mediation model on the process only makes it worse. As I've said before, mediation is only possible when both sides really want the mediator to be successful (cf. the mid-east peace process).

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

The "takeover" may be a stretch, but the government is mandating that insurance companies do a number of things they wouldn't do otherwise: Guaranteed issue/renewal, modified community rating, no pre-existing condition exclusions, etc. that these may be popular is irrelevant.

So the government controlling what the product is, how it is sold, and how much you can charge for it, and how it is marketed. but it isn't a takeover.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | December 17, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

This is a good piece, on topic too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121606083.html

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Like I said before: The Republicans kept on repeating their "Big Lies" just like Goebbels would have done. In addition; Five Right Wing Activists on the Supreme Court, arranged for Secret Sinister Secret Big Money Cabals, to provide unlimited sources of funding ,to make sure that The Republicans will be able to sustain their Big Lie Blitzkriegs until The Oligarchy has completely vanquished We The People.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

So the government controlling what the product is,

*whatever we want to sell*

how it is sold,

*anytime, anywhere, we get paid*

and how much you can charge for it,

*sky's the limit*

and how it is marketed.

*marketing isn't free you know*

but it isn't a takeover.

*Sure it is, it is only a matter of who got taken.*

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

This topic makes me embarrassed to be a human being.

We are supposed to be the "smart" species.

MORE FACT-CHECKING PLEASE. FFS.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 17, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

This should be "must see teevee..."

CNN Teaming With Tea Party For Republican Presidential Debate

CNN announced Friday that it has teamed up with the Tea Party Express to host what it is calling a "first-of-its-kind Tea Party presidential primary debate" in September 2011.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/cnn-tea-party-debate_n_798284.html

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 17, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Rachel Maddow did a good bit about the MSM shifting away from any "liberal" or "progressive" item and either ignoring it, lying about it, or reducing it to nothing. It is not only FOX that does amazing disinformation in the US. Until we get a media that is widespread and honest about the political spectrum, we are not living in a true democracy. But until we get the big money out of controlling the US and maybe a Supreme Court who can see the difference between a corporation and a person, we don't have much anyway. GOP shutting down support to the 9-11 first responders this week was only reported honestly on Al Jazeera as shown on the Daily Show this week.

Posted by: LillithMc | December 17, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Takeover is a strong term but there is no doubt the government has a HUGE deciding factor in health care now they did not have before.

Any liberal that denies this needs to get their brain checked.

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

benevolent-

25% of Texans have no health insurance. So, either 6 million folks *just in Texas* are "irresponsible", or maybe there are a host of other factors at work beyond your simplistic explanation.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | December 17, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

"The simple fact, Mr. Sargent, is that MOST Americans don't feel like they should be paying for others' healthcare."

Nevermind the fact that that is how insurance works. And if that is what Americans don't like, then where are all the Republicans clamoring for ending Medicare and Medicaid?

"when a lack of personal responsibility seems to be preventing millions of these future recipients from paying for it themselves."

Any proof for that assertion? Many of the uninsured were/are working Americans, if they weren't working Americans they would qualify for Medicaid. What would you have these Americans do without in order to pay for insurance?

"refers to the strict regulation of insurance companies and the healthcare industry, reducing competition and privately-funded R&D, reducing quality and timeliness of care"

What specific provisions are you referring to within the bill?

Here's a link that discusses how PPACA put in place quality improvement measures that will reward hospitals that decrease re-admmisions, HAC's, adverse events (formerly never events) etc. http://www.foley.com/publications/pub_detail.aspx?pubid=7141

Hospitals that measure poorly on these various quality measures will end up losing money. To a large extent, providing poor care is rewarded under the current system (it will continue to be so under PPACA, too, but less so) because you get paid for services you provide. Do a poor job and you get to provide more services and charge more and make more. Although the use of DRGs also cuts against that as well.

Your post is really a perfect example of what Greg was talking about, "it's a government takeover because the bill lets the government takeover" with nary an article or statutory citation to be found.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

This is rich coming from the WaPo who abdicated any real journalism by buying and parroting what the gop had to say. Blame the company you work for Greg, they are as complicit in spreading this lie as any republican.

Posted by: temptxan | December 17, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Why are people so surprised to now learn that Republicans kept on Spreading The Big Lie about Government Take over of health care?

Does the frigging main stream media suffer from collective amnesia?
Do none of them remember that The Republicans did the exact same thing, last year, with their "Death Panels" Big Lie.

The Mythical "Liberal Media" Watchdog, never barked then either.

As for The Leaders of The Democratic Party; even after Republicans steam rolled them in 2009, with their "Death Panel" Big Lie, those same Democrats still had not figured out, how to fight back, against the same tactics being used again this year.

No doubt, they will still be mostly a bunch of potted plants, in 2011, when Republicans start carpet bombing them anew, with their arsenal of new Big Lies.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

If it isn't a government takeover, why does the government need so much money to implement it? Enticing 50 million more people to join Medicaid is asking more peopel to go on government (taxpayer funded) medicine.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | December 17, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Oh I didn't see this, apart from all the wing nuts worried about gay sex, this is the hilarious post of the day!

It turns out the insurance industry supplies health care, like mother's milk. Without for profit insurance companies, health care would cease to exist!

"If the government plan succeeds in its current form, the private insurance industry as we now know it will eventually cease to exist. Then where will we be? The cow only has so much milk..."

The people who actually do health care, we think we are like cows, swarming with parasites.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

But until we get the big money out of controlling the US and maybe a Supreme Court who can see the difference between a corporation and a person
==================
You got suckered.

Democrats argued the campaign law gave them the right to ban books. That was a huge deciding factor in the SCOTUS decision. The SCOTUS even gave them a 2nd argument.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205.pdf

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205%5BReargued%5D.pdf

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Chuck -

Yes, it is simple, isn't it? Sounds like there are about 6 million Texans that need to think about educating themselves a little better. BTW, how many of those people are American citizens? Would love to hear your "host of other factors," but I bet you can't really think of anything outside of people who simply haven't worked as hard in their lives as you and I have. Their are many more than 6 million Americans without health insurance quite happily living on the government handout - go to any big city and look around if you don't believe me.

Posted by: benevolent9 | December 17, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama and crew have dictated by law that we must buy insurance or be fined, and the terms of what the insurance cover, whom it must cover, how much it can cost, etc. But if that's not enough of a "takeover" for you, there's what skip said:

"this is a complicated topic and we have the words of Mr Obama and many other prominent liberals concerning the ultimate goal, which is a government take over."

Obama and his gurus and lackeys are on record saying the scheme is designed and intended to lead to full government takeover. So spare us the faux outrage. This post is more of a lie than the "lie" it attacks.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 17, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"if they weren't working Americans they would qualify for Medicaid"

Not necessarily. Medicaid eligibility varies a lot by state. employment may or may not be required, largely dependent on your income level. it's more generous, in terms of eligibly, to children and families. childless adults are the least likely to qualify.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | December 17, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Cyros, I can't make those links work. Can you check them? I'd like to read them.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still, Joseph Goebbels didn't say the quote you're attributing to him. And if you think lying is some one-sided coin of government propaganda, think again. While rooting out all the lying in government is a noble cause (LONG LIVE ASSANGE), please don't add to the mix with more misinformation.

Posted by: kodi_68 | December 17, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Cyros, I can't make those links work. Can you check them? I'd like to read them.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 2:10 PM
=================
They should work. I copied and pasted and they work fine. They are pdfs so you might need an adobe plugin.

It's a LONG document. It's the whole transcript but some key words like "express advocacy" "400 page" "500 page" will get you to key points for the pamphlet/book banning argument.

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

"Enticing 50 million more people to join Medicaid is asking more peopel to go on government (taxpayer funded) medicine."

Why not call it that then? Nah, we'll just call it a government takeover.

This is really just like the reasoning of skip and QB who said in short, "well they want to takeover health care." That's not what the you are saying or what the media is saying. You are saying this bill is a government takeover. Defend it.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

ashotin -

"Any proof for that assertion? Many of the uninsured were/are working Americans, if they weren't working Americans they would qualify for Medicaid. What would you have these Americans do without in order to pay for insurance?"

We could start with cell phones, cars, flat screen tv's, microwaves, and junk food. Have you been to a big city grocery store recently? Yes, that is a generalization... but a good one.

Thanks for your agenda-link. Doctors, who are currently being paid $.60-80 on the dollar see their revenue actually decreasing with the new plan, so would you guess more or fewer doctors will be taking medicaid/medicare patients in a few years? I have a hunch. The issue is not quality of hospital care (which is generally good), the issue is wait time for specialists, and decreased incentive for private companies to produce new and beneficial procedures, machines, and drugs.

I don't think you can see the forest for the trees - sorry I don't have some huffingtonpost stat to back that up, but is there any legitimate argument that costs will decrease and quality of care will go up? Seriously. How is adding 31 million people to Medicaid going to improve the situation?

Posted by: benevolent9 | December 17, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

How about biggest lie of the century.

"Tax cuts for the rich"

Oh except that 75% of them are for the poor and middle class.

I could go on and on and on. "Trillions on the iraq war" for example. Liberals are the PRIMARY source of ignorant untrue catch phrases.

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Ok, I might have too many windows open (stupid work!). Thanks I'll figure it out.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

OT

From TPM

"Nigeria has dropped criminal bribery charges against oilfield giant Halliburton and some of its current and former executives, including Dick Cheney, after the company agreed to pay fines of $250 million, according to the Nigerian government."

....................

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Biggest lie of the decade**** is what I meant

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Kodi,

I love how you are now playing the Goebbels Big Lie Gambit, by denying that he said what I quoted. He did say it.

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/-if_you_tell_a_lie_big_enough_and_keep_repeating/345877.html

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

"...but is there any legitimate argument that costs will decrease and quality of care will go up?"

1) Costs will increase at least as fast as they ever have. Everyone understands that. Informed people who say they don't agree...are lying.

2) Quality of care will be unchanged, see #1.

We can't provide really bad care, not to poor people, not to anyone; fee basis is no defense against malpractice. So, in general, we don't take jobs where we don't get paid to provide high quality care.


Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are damn good at message discipline.

~~~~~

Yep. Even if the message is gobbeldy gook, once told to use certain phrases the Republican pundits and politicians use that phrase even when it makes no sense at all.

If, for instance, the big problem facing the country is the unemployment rate, everything the Republicans don't like is painted as "Job Killing." Even if the policy they are pushing was enacted a decade ago and has not shown any signs of adding any jobs ever, if the policy is something they want (tax cuts for Paris Hilton) then by golly letting that policy lapse is a "Job Killer."

What choice do they have? They are Mayberry Machiavellis. By definition they don't care about policy; they only care about politics. If it is politically advantageous to pass a massive entitlement program (Medicare Part D) then they'll pass it. If it is MORE politically advantageous to put said entitlement program on the national credit card than to pay for it, well break out the plastic, it is go time!

The bottom line is that they are nihilist. Their only concern is their own well being. If spouting nonsensical talking points helps, they'll do it. If starting wars helps, they'll do it. Whatever it takes to win, they'll do it.

And no, they aren't going against their principles because they don't have any principles.

Posted by: HansSolo | December 17, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Don't expect truth or reality from wingnuts... cultists can't be expected to understand anything but the propaganda they parrot from Fox and Limbaugh.

They lack the intelligence to even understand that they are ALREADY paying for 'other people's health care' in the most expensive way possible -- the hospital ER. people who don't have health insurance go to these when they get sick and the hospital pays for it by raising rates for everyone else--and so it goes along the medical supply chain. So you suckers are going to pay, it's just a question of less or more, and you are choosing more.

Posted by: fiona5 | December 17, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

@Greg

"Republicans are damn good at message discipline."

Here, I fixed it:

"Republicans are damn good at lying."

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | December 17, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Apparently; most Right Wingers never noticed that The Insurance Cabal was raising the rates through the roof ever year, while dropping people who might get sick, before any health care reform was attempted.

Suddenly now, they are worried that covering more people might drive costs up. Where were all those myopic morons, when The Insurance Cabal was raising the rates at 20, 30, and forty percent levels each year, while refusing to cover people who just might get sick.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Don't expect truth or reality from wingnuts... cultists can't be expected to understand anything but the propaganda they parrot from Fox and Limbaugh.

They lack the intelligence to even understand that they are ALREADY paying for 'other people's health care' in the most expensive way possible -- the hospital ER. people who don't have health insurance go to these when they get sick and the hospital pays for it by raising rates for everyone else--and so it goes along the medical supply chain. So you suckers are going to pay, it's just a question of less or more, and you are choosing more.

Posted by: fiona5 | December 17, 2010 2:26 P
=================
Please try to not be so simplistic even though that's what liberals are best at. Make bad analogies and silo the discussion acting like it exists in a vacuum.

People will go to the ER when needed but they will ride you to pay for it and it can damage your credit. You don't go there when you please unless you're an illegal.

You give people free insurance and they have a TON more in costs from repeated visits including scams like trying to get "free" pain medication they otherwise wouldn't be doing.

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

BBQ wins the thread!

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 17, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

osted by: HansSolo | December 17, 2010 2:26 PM
==========
Although part D is too expensive these people have PAID for the benefits.

That and paying for a bunch of freeloaders who didn't put any money in is a huge difference. Once again simplistic minds and an idealist agenda = a simplistic thought process from your end.

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

"Thanks for your agenda-link."

Haha..yeah foley is really a leftist organization. Can't refute anything in the link so just make some innuendo. Your post specifically mentioned it will hurt quality which you have already abandoned to just be talking about wait times.

"Doctors, who are currently being paid $.60-80 on the dollar see their revenue actually decreasing with the new plan, so would you guess more or fewer doctors will be taking medicaid/medicare patients in a few years?"

Well, since medicaid is about to get 30 million new paying customers and the number of people in Medicare keeps growing, I'm guessing some doctors might stop accepting Medicare/aid patients, but most will continue to treat them. Vanguard has been buying up inner city hospitals including the Detroit Medical Center near me so somebody thinks you can make money. Which of course makes me question how we'll end up saving money.

"How is adding 31 million people to Medicaid going to improve the situation?"

I don't know...why don't you ask one of the 31 million people who didn't have insurance but will. You can find them in front of their big screen TVs talking on their iPhones.


Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Dick Cheney and Halliburton were being charged with paying bribes in Nigeria.

How did they resolve it, and get the charges dropped? Why of course; by paying a 250 million dollar bribe.

Never mind me. It is my Irish sense of whimsy that makes me love the irony in such resolution of corruption cases, by The American Untouchables.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

"They lack the intelligence to even understand that they are ALREADY paying for 'other people's health care' in the most expensive way possible -- the hospital ER."

Ah, so the implication here is that, with the new plan, costs will go DOWN since the uninsured are now covered and my taxes will lower as a result. GREAT! Free health care for everyone and we all pay less, plus the quality is improved!! I'm all for it now! Great job, liberals, now all of us dumb warmongers and racists understand finally.

Posted by: benevolent9 | December 17, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

"Tax cuts for the rich"
"Trillions for the Iraq war"
"Bush shredding the constitution"
Racism in a million different forms
on and on and on.

Please spare your righteous indignation for "government takeover" when there is significant evidence to show that is what is happening. The health care industry will need to comply with a huge number of regulations the government enacts.

"Government takeover" has a whole lot more truth to it than the jabbering lies coming from the left.

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

1) Costs will increase at least as fast as they ever have. Everyone understands that. Informed people who say they don't agree...are lying.

2) Quality of care will be unchanged, see #1.

We can't provide really bad care, not to poor people, not to anyone; fee basis is no defense against malpractice. So, in general, we don't take jobs where we don't get paid to provide high quality care.


Posted by: shrink2
-------------------------------------------

1) There is some stuff that might slow it down a little, but I'm dubious. It may also slow down for reasons completely unrelated to health care reform.

2) I think quality control is getting a lot more attention than it used to so quality should get better too. That might have occurred without the bill too. But what does quality improvement mean? Better outcomes, fewer unneeded test, less money spent but same outcomes?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Except in this case, Corporations, or as Eisenhower warned, the Military-Industrial Complex, know the The State is the only thing that can balance their own quest for control. We used to have the fairness doctrine to keep corporate control over media under check (Reagan got rid of it). Now the SCOTUS has determined that Corporations has "Free Speech" rights, even though they're chartered by The State. They own the media, The Big Lie is almost unstoppable.

Other Big Lies.
Global warming is a hoax.
Evolution is 'only' a Theory.
Trickle down economics works.
Eternal paradise waits true-believers after death.
Obama is a Socialist.

Posted by: thebobbob | December 17, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Next thing, The Government will be taking over running The Military instead of leaving it in the hands of wonderful patriots like five deferment Dick.

I sure hope that Republicans will start beating the Drums to keep the Government's Hands Off Our Military, and Our Medicare, and Our Social Security, and Our Streets, and Our Coins, and Our......

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans are damn good at two things:

1. Keeping their rich benefactors rich, to the exclusion of everything else.

2. Lying about the first point.

Posted by: sasquatchbigfoot | December 17, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

All, Olympia Snowe is a Yes on DADT repeal:

http://wapo.st/hvblx7

Posted by: Greg Sargent | December 17, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Thankfully, Five Deferment Joe is on the job now.

(Will he ever realize he is a national joke, not a revered statesman?)

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 17, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

The intent of the bill was never about health care. It was about growing the SEIU and other unions to staff the monster bureaucracy that will need to be created to run this pos. The health bill will collapse under its own debt weight and what will be left but the government pools. Hopefully the Courts and the new Congress can start killing Obamacare and repeal when a new President takes office after 2012.

Posted by: Bubbette1 | December 17, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

All, Olympia Snowe is a Yes on DADT repeal:

http://wapo.st/hvblx7

Posted by: Greg Sargent | December 17, 2010 2:50 P
===============
This reminds me of another recent liberal deception to add to my list.

DADT repeal being equivalent to inclusion of race in the military.

Only if you think that race and complicated issues dealing with sexual attraction are the same thing.

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

in response to this:
======================
Nevermind the fact that that is how insurance works. And if that is what Americans don't like, then where are all the Republicans clamoring for ending Medicare and Medicaid?

==============================

Thre are two concepts that must be addressed. First is "risk pools" and the next is "the future".

Ashot asserts that insurance works via a collective contribution to a pool of money set aside to payout claims and administer the program. At least that's how health insurance via an employer works. It is NOT how, for example, car or life insurance work. Not at all. Those are individual risks and the premiums are based on an underwriters assessment of the cost of the eventual payout VS the revenue stream from the premiums.

Individual health insurance is costly because there is no one over which to share the risk. Prior to the massive government takeover of healthcare people joined risk pools voluntarily. Responsible people decided to forego some portion of their paycheck to protect their assets against loss incurred during medical treatment.

Obama mandates that Americans fund this risk pool, whether they want to or not. The liberals have developed a tissue of lies claiming that this isn't a government take over but it is.

Next, let's discuss the future. The other massive intrusion into our private lives deals with the mandate preventing pre existing clause case denials. Just this week I reviewed a case where a person bought an insurance policy and then 8 (yes that's right 8) days later was diagnosted with a serious disease. The insurance company has no doubt recieved ONE premium payment. There is no doubt that the disease existed, and was known to exist, prior to the purchase. RElying on the language of the contract, which the purchaser signed and which is a private contract between citizens, the insurance company will deny claims on this case. Come 2014, they will not be able to do so. How will they make up their losses ashot? Manna from heaven? Taxes on the rich?

Both public insurance programs you mention must be dramatically overhauled. The conversation will begin with the swearing in of the next congress.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 17, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

OK, my last few posts were kind of silly, so I'll lay it out for you all.

1. I believe healthcare is a privilege, not a right. There are many things in modern society that are also privileges, to which I am willing to pay into (police protection, municipal fire departments, roads, etc). I am not willing to pay into the pot for healthcare for people who I believe should be working hard enough to pay their fair share.

2. I believe insurance should pay part of, not all of, our healthcare costs. Doctor's time, technology, and drugs are expensive to produce and those people deserve to be paid for the complex things they're doing. Insurance should cover some of this money, I should cover the rest. The ratio of who covers what should be between my insurance company and myself.

3. I feel sorry for people who are truly destitute and cannot afford any type of coverage. Still, these people are ALWAYS treated in emergency situations. I donate to faith-based charities which essentially give away medical care to people who truly need it. Medicaid was started with these people in mind and has now expanded exponentially.

4. I believe a significant amount of revenue could be raised toward a government option through voluntary contributions on income taxes. For those of us that want to pay more money to cover the uninsured, they should be given the opportunity. Those who don't feel like contributing through the federal government could continue to keep more of their paycheck. This allows people who believe healthcare is a right to contribute whatever they feel they should and allows others to donate, or keep their money as they see fit.

5. I believe competition among healthcare companies is what drives innovation and is the primary reason that US corporations have been responsible for the vast majority of medical and pharmaceutical innovation in the last 100 years or so. I would have to see that go away, and so would the rest of the world.

Posted by: benevolent9 | December 17, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Most of the complaining about Federal Taxes comes from Red States that are actually welfare parasites. The Federal Government spends far more on those States than they receive from them. That includes Alaska. Palin was actually a Welfare Queen, as Governor, while complaining about those her state was ripping off.

Mostly Blue States pay the taxes that are doled out to the Red States that keep whining about Federal Taxes.

Here is an idea; all you parasitic Red States whiners. Start refusing to take more from Washington than you send there, and then we might start listening to your complaints . But until that actually happens; get lost, you bunch of freeloading hypocrites.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

It's not a privilege or a right. It's a need. You also have a complete disconnect when you equate how "hard" someone works with how deserving someone is of health care. There's plenty of very hard working people in low wage, no benefit jobs. Plenty of less hard working people with employer or wealth-provided health care.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 17, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

All, Olympia Snowe is a Yes on DADT repeal:

http://wapo.st/hvblx7

Posted by: Greg Sargent | December 17, 2010 2:50 PM
=============
Another note on this. I hope for the soldiers' sake this doesn't pass by this lame duck congress.

If so they should allow honorable discharges and let the "brave" liberals take their place or institute the draft.

Liberals naively instituting their social experiment on combat troops is not what our military needs.

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

"Ashot asserts that insurance works via a collective contribution to a pool of money set aside to payout claims and administer the program. At least that's how health insurance via an employer works. It is NOT how, for example, car or life insurance work. Not at all."

Since we are talking about health insurance you are agreeing with me, right?I agree that's not how car or life insurance works, but those are rather different situations than health insurance hence the need to handle them differently.

"How will they make up their losses ashot? Manna from heaven? Taxes on the rich?"

That's why the mandate is necessary. Although some insurers like BCBS have to cover everyone already (although I'm sure they have some recourse where there is fraud as you described) so there is a way that insurance companies insure people they know they are going to take a bath on.

I wonder if there would be a way to set aside money for cases like that. It happens with no-fault car insurance (Yes I know I just said this stuff is different) where laws require insurance companies to pay for injuries arising from car accidents. When someone is paralyzed car insurance companies take a big hit because care is so expense and a life time of premiums wouldn't make up for the difference.

I'd have to think about that some more, but you're right, it's a big problem although it happens to be a feature that people seem to like.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

The US spends more, each year, on The Military, than the next top 49 nations combined.

The Right Wingers never complain about all that wasteful spending, that only goes toward expanding the arts of death, while constantly whining about any taxes going toward healing the sick and destitute. However; They Are Pro-Life, Don't You Know, and they will tell you so, over and over.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Here's some truth:
=========================
The intent of the bill was never about health care. It was about growing the SEIU and other unions to staff the monster bureaucracy that will need to be created to run this pos. The health bill will collapse under its own debt weight and what will be left but the government pools. Hopefully the Courts and the new Congress can start killing Obamacare and repeal when a new President takes office after 2012
====================================
The single largest union in the hospital biz is SEIU. They have over a million members, just about twice the number of members as the second largest union in the hospital biz: AFSCME.

Who was the most frequent visitor to Obama's white house in the early days of his regime? If you guessed Andy Stern of SEIU, you are a winner.

Now for the bonus round: which union spent the most on the 2010 election campaign? If you guessed AFSCME, you get the grand prize.

I don't know how many of the liberals spewing invective here have ever been treated in a municipal hospital, but I have plenty of experience with this, first hand. Nothing will destroy productivity and patient care faster than the realization that the unions make it impossible for poor performing employees to be fired. if the destruction of K through 12 education by unions wasn't devastating enough, wait till the surly nurse that is taking their time getting you a PRN pain med is a government employee.

Next will be routine pay raises voted for by political operatives who owe their seats to union campaign contributions. In a few short decades the tune sung by the liberals will be different. The rich they want to tax at that point will be anybody making 50K/year.

then of course we'll fund pensions. The unionized hospital workers will be allowed to retire at age 55 on a defined benefit plan paid for by tax payers.

Obamacare will destroy the best healthcare system in the world. And the liberals will love every minute of it. Why? Because insurance companies are succesfull and liberals hate success. The rest of the misery inflicted on us will just be an added little delight to the left.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 17, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

"The US spends more, each year, on The Military, than the next top 49 nations combined."

Agreed on wasteful military spending. But I think you should double-check your stats; I believe at least China and North Korea actually spend more. Plus, we always seem to be in the role of protecting most of those other 49 countries, don't we?

Posted by: benevolent9 | December 17, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Teabagger arseclowns (the middle-class Republican base nuts) are some of the dumbest fracking people on the face of the earth.


These Teabag morons are so damn illiterate that they don't have a clue as to how they are nothing more than tools for the corporate oligarchy. I'm willing to bet that everytime one of these rich greedhead Wall Steet types sees one of these middle-class Teabagger dumarses yapping about how gov't jobs, unions, etc are supposedly causing all of this countries financial problems they probably sit back, light up a cigar and laugh their fracking arses off.


And I can't say that I blame them. They probably can't believe their good fortune of actually having these Teabagger inbreeds running around in the streets doing all of their dirty work for them.


.

Posted by: DrainYou | December 17, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: DrainYou | December 17, 2010 3:23 P
==================
Being so smart feel free to refute any of my points. Also try to use logic not just throwing angry insults.

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Only because we want to project global power. China spends about one tenth of what the US does, and N. Korea spend almost nothing at all.

Russia, and the European powers, are the next biggest spenders to the US, on their Military, but all of the EU combined, does not even come close to what the US spends each year.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Risk related set asides exists, as do stratified case rates under capitated systems, there are risk pool stratified rates in fee for service structures. Nothing you can think of doesn't already exist, that is a big part of the problem. All that slicing and dicing, all of it costs, not just money (efficiency), it costs access and outcomes.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Sadly the left will probably get DADT repealed and cause unneeded deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq to serve their simplistic interests.

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

"The US spends more, each year, on The Military, than the next top 49 nations combined."

I would ask for proof, but any intelligent person can see that this claim is so much hot air as well as a red herring. When you can produce reliable proof of what China and Russia actually spend on their militaries, for example, you might have a basis for discussion. But this is just left-wing surrender caucus talking point nonsense.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 17, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

NAFTA for Dummies.

An unmanned surveillance plane, being operated by the Mexican Government, crashed yesterday, on the US side of the border.

How many of those unmanned planes were sold by The USA to Mexico, because of the wonderful benefits of NAFTA?

Answer: None. Mexico purchased them from Israel.
Three cheers for the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Sadly the left will probably get DADT repealed and cause unneeded deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq to serve their simplistic interests.

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 3:28 PM

...........................

Every death in Iraq was "unneeded" you homophobic Moron!

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Liberals accomplishments this session:

- Raised healthcare costs
- Raised credit card rates
- Raised the cost of loans
- Weakened our military

Real class act.

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Sadly the left will probably get DADT repealed and cause unneeded deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq to serve their simplistic interests.

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 3:28 PM

...........................

Every death in Iraq was "unneeded" you homophobic Moron!

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 3:37 PM
=============
So more deaths are better? Typical liberal logic.

Don't be angry when your sons/daughters are taken in a draft to go to war. if you haven't noticed democrats are not leaving the wars and there is empirical evidence that re-enlistment and recruiting will dramatically suffer.

But ignore the reality of the decimation of a motivated, volunteer military and cheer because some simplistic ideal was satisfied.

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Health Care cost soared each year, under Bush/Cheney, while Insurance companies kept operating Death Panels, to avoid having to take care of those who might become ill.

Bush tax cuts, turned annual revenue surpluses into massive annual deficits, and threw many millions of people out work, while also destroying their pension plans.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I would ask for proof, but any intelligent person can see that this claim is so much hot air as well as a red herring.

Here's the CIA World Factbook laying out the GDP's for various nations and the EU:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html?countryName=China&countryCode=ch®ionCode=eas&rank=3#ch

And here's the CIA world Factbook regarding spending on military as a percent of GDP:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html?countryName=China&countryCode=ch®ionCode=eas&rank=23#ch

Do the math and let us know what the numbers are. Since you were intelligent enough to sniff out Liam's lie, you surely are intelligent enough to do the math.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

"if you haven't noticed democrats are not leaving the wars and there is empirical evidence that re-enlistment and recruiting will dramatically suffer."

Actually withdrawal timelines have been set.

"But ignore the reality of the decimation of a motivated, volunteer military and cheer because some simplistic ideal was satisfied."

Our troop moral is that fragile that finding out there is a homosexual in the platoon will decimate them?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

OT, did someone say Republicans are disingenuous liars? Read this @benen re: START:

"""Fine, Democrats said, let's have the debate. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), one of the leading champions of the treaty, went to the floor yesterday to invite Republicans with concerns to present their amendments for consideration. It was, by some accounts, the moment the GOP has been waiting for -- a chance to present their recommended policy changes and have them voted on.

Except, that's not what happened. Kerry kept asking Republicans to present their amendments so the Senate could vote on them, but GOP detractors of the treaty had nothing to offer. They had demanded time for their amendments, but hadn't bothered to actually write any."""

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_12/027141.php

They demanded time for their oh-so-critically-important amendments...... but they DIDN'T HAVE ANY!

ARGGHH!!!

Why do Republicans abuse America with their BS shenanigans?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 17, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

"if you haven't noticed democrats are not leaving the wars and there is empirical evidence that re-enlistment and recruiting will dramatically suffer."

Actually withdrawal timelines have been set.

"But ignore the reality of the decimation of a motivated, volunteer military and cheer because some simplistic ideal was satisfied."

Our troop moral is that fragile that finding out there is a homosexual in the platoon will decimate them?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 3:48 PM
=====================
Yeah the Bush timetable was followed to the letter.

Being forced into situations like showers and close quarters with gays where they don't have to hide their sexual attractions WILL cause complications. Easy for armchair generals to rationalize it when you're not the ones affected.

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

I would ask for proof, but any intelligent person can see that this claim is so much hot air as well as a red herring.

Here's the CIA World Factbook laying out the GDP's for various nations and the EU:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html?countryName=China&countryCode=ch®ionCode=eas&rank=3#ch

And here's the CIA world Factbook regarding spending on military as a percent of GDP:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html?countryName=China&countryCode=ch®ionCode=eas&rank=23#ch

Do the math and let us know what the numbers are. Since you were intelligent enough to sniff out Liam's lie, you surely are intelligent enough to do the math.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 3:43 PM
==========
Russia and China do not fully disclose their military spending so its always a best guess estimate.

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Global military spending in 2007.

The USA 600 Billion dollars. The rest of the world combined.

$500 Billion dollars.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm


Top 10 Military Spenders in 2008
(in billions of dollars)

1. United States — 607.0
2. China — 84.9
3. France — 65.7
4. United Kingdom — 65.3
5. Russia — 58.6
6. Germany — 46.8
7. Japan — 46.3
8. Italy — 40.6
9. Saudi Arabia — 38.2
10. India — 30.0

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009062409/us-military-spending-overwhelms-rest-world

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

According to Cryos, The Resident Homophobic Moron;

All the other nations would have to do, is deploy small armies of gay people, and our mighty military would all immediatly be seized with an attack of the vapors, and pass out and die.

I find it hilarious that The Homophobes are the ones who are disparaging our fighting forces, by portraying them as weaklings who would fall apart, if there were any gay people in their presence.

Amazing that all American Corporations have not suffered that same fate, since people work along side gay people on a daily basis.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Who are these people that have appointed them self to call what is a lie or not? Never heard of them. And when the government tells Insurance companies how much profit they can make or how much coverage they should provide. Then tell a person that they have to by Insurance or pay a fine and maybe go to jail for tax evasion if they do not. IT SURE SOUNDS LIKE GOVERNMENT CONTROL

Posted by: texasoil | December 17, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"Yeah the Bush timetable was followed to the letter."

Perhaps, but that's not what you said. You said they aren't leaving the wars, then just agreed that they are.

"Being forced into situations like showers and close quarters with gays where they don't have to hide their sexual attractions WILL cause complications. Easy for armchair generals to rationalize it when you're not the ones affected."


They don't have to hide their sexual attractions? What specifically are you saying will be allowed to occur in these showers that was previously not allowed? Repealing DADT allows them to sexually assault or harass people?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

According to Cryos, The Resident Homophobic Moron;

All the other nations would have to do, is deploy small armies of gay people, and our mighty military would all immediatly be seized with an attack of the vapors, and pass out and die.

I find it hilarious that The Homophobes are the ones who are disparaging our fighting forces, by portraying them as weaklings who would fall apart, if there were any gay people in their presence.

Amazing that all American Corporations have not suffered that same fate, since people work along side gay people on a daily basis.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 4:04 PM
==========
Hey moonbat. Funny how you can't refute my points and right some fluffy post.

You can't even face the very real situation I put in and don't have the guts to put it in your post.

The head of the branches of the armed forces have said repeal WILL CAUSE PROBLEMS.

Quit being a windbag and try to act like you have a brain. If all you can do is spout platitudes do everyone a favor and just shut up.

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

"Yeah the Bush timetable was followed to the letter."

Perhaps, but that's not what you said. You said they aren't leaving the wars, then just agreed that they are.

"Being forced into situations like showers and close quarters with gays where they don't have to hide their sexual attractions WILL cause complications. Easy for armchair generals to rationalize it when you're not the ones affected."


They don't have to hide their sexual attractions? What specifically are you saying will be allowed to occur in these showers that was previously not allowed? Repealing DADT allows them to sexually assault or harass people?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 4:07 PM
========
I was insinuating leaving the wars any differently than republicans did like they cried about for years.

Funny how all the whining stopped.

What would stop them from staring at people in the showers making them uncomfortable? It's not illegal. If someone reacted they would be the ones in trouble.

I assume you support men being able to shower with women if DADT repeal passes right? If not please articulate exactly why not. It's identical.

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Insurance Companies will not cover you or your family, unless you pay through the nose, and even then, if they suspect that one of you might end up getting sick, they will would drop you at once. They ran Death Panels that profiled who were the health suckers, and who were the potential sick people who needed to be dropped.

That is who Republicans keep backing. An Insurance Cabal that kept raising rates through the roof, every year, while dropping people that they profiled as potential risks.

Republicans Love Death Panels, as long as they are privatized.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Liam I assume you also support men being able to shower with women if they choose if DADT repeal is done. Anyone feel free to answer and if you disagree explain exactly why.

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

I shower with my wife all the time. Have done so for many decades. I sure hope I have not taken the fight out of her.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

I shower with my wife all the time. Have done so for many decades. I sure hope I have not taken the fight out of her.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 4:18 PM
========
Just what I figured. Some half witted attempt at a cop out. You couldn't debate your way out of a wet paper bag.

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

"I was insinuating leaving the wars any differently than republicans did like they cried about for years."

Then why didn't you say that instead of insinuating by saying something different? We could have agreed 2 posts ago. And Obama openly campaigned about how important Afghanistan was and needing to increase troops there so Democrats that thought he would withdraw sooner weren't listening.

"What would stop them from staring at people in the showers making them uncomfortable? It's not illegal. If someone reacted they would be the ones in trouble."

I suppose it would depend on the scenario, but at some point it could become sexual harassment. Have you ever showered with guys before? Do you just stare at the wall the entire time? If so how do you know if you were being stared at? If you looked elsewhere, did you see any naked guys? It happens all the time at my gym. Naked guys walking around, it happens all the time in lockerrooms around the country and somehow everyone manages to survive.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Cryos,

Why are you scared of gay people? Real hetro men aren't. I think you need to confront your own sexual confusion.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

"I assume you support men being able to shower with women if DADT repeal passes right? If not please articulate exactly why not. It's identical."

Is not identical and you know it. Men can overpower women physically.

Why aren't homosexuals showers separated in gyms, locker rooms etc?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

"I was insinuating leaving the wars any differently than republicans did like they cried about for years."

Then why didn't you say that instead of insinuating by saying something different? We could have agreed 2 posts ago. And Obama openly campaigned about how important Afghanistan was and needing to increase troops there so Democrats that thought he would withdraw sooner weren't listening.

"What would stop them from staring at people in the showers making them uncomfortable? It's not illegal. If someone reacted they would be the ones in trouble."

I suppose it would depend on the scenario, but at some point it could become sexual harassment. Have you ever showered with guys before? Do you just stare at the wall the entire time? If so how do you know if you were being stared at? If you looked elsewhere, did you see any naked guys? It happens all the time at my gym. Naked guys walking around, it happens all the time in lockerrooms around the country and somehow everyone manages to survive.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 4:26 PM
=====================
My bad on the war thing I should have clarified. Fact remains that if we do have a war there is almost certainly a greater chance of requiring a draft due to decreased volunteers.

It will be hard to prove sexual harassment and it will be assumed, like in civilian life, that the gay person is always the victim.

We're also talking about combat situations where they are forced to live with these same people 24 hours a day and are in physical contact. Night and day difference from someone you see casually, voluntarily before you go home to your own private life.

It WILL introduce a lot of complications.

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Wow, the liberals here are in a surly mood. consistently losing will do that I guess.

Ashot, my objections to the mandate are manifold. First I don't believe that the Federal government has the right to demand that its citizens engage in a very specific type of economic activity. We have a right to just hang around if we want. If this mandate survives the courts I grieve for my country. Our freedom will be eroded in short order as busy bodies in DC, from Michelle on down, tell us how to live our lives. No thanks.

Another huge objection is that they are basically unnecessary. The cost of uncompensated care is already being offset by the responsible people who actually do purchase insurance coverage. In fact we not only offset the cost of uncompensated care we also offset the cost of under compensated care as well. In many states the medicaid payout is insufficient to cover the costs of the care being mandated.

Medicaid in most states will lose providers at an alarming rate once all this stuff kicks in. As it is now many ancillary providers are quitting. The number of outlets for medicaid optical benefits or audiology benefits is dwindling in my area, too much work for too little pay, plus the customers are unreliable and difficult to work with.

Further, if we really want to dramatically lower the cost of uncompensated care we need only seal the border and modify EMTALA. This will significantly reduce the amount of free care that American hospitals provide to Mexican Citizens.

As for the pre existing condition clause, I predicted the problem during the debate about Obamacare. What happened was that the rhetoric overran the reality. When the proponents of the bill spoke of pre existing condition denials, what they were really complaining about was chronic illness. someone diagnosed with, oh say, MS at an early age will struggle to contend with it from an insurance perspective. My experience is that most find employment with coverage and hang on tight. The portability of coverage wasn't really altered by HIPAA at all.

I can see a "high risk" pool approach that might work. In ohio there is a high risk agency that insures houses that no one else will. The administration of that is a nightmare but the idea might make sense if applied to folks diagnosed with expensive and chronic illnesses.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 17, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

"I assume you support men being able to shower with women if DADT repeal passes right? If not please articulate exactly why not. It's identical."

Is not identical and you know it. Men can overpower women physically.

Why aren't homosexuals showers separated in gyms, locker rooms etc?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 4:30 PM
=================
Horrible excuse. Go ask prisons if men can overpower other men as well. There are also some women that could whup guys to shreds; especially in the military.

Your 2nd part is a good question. Not as intrusive in private life than military though.

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

"This is obviously a massive media failure." You're kidding right? When, in the last few years has the public been able to believe anything from the "media"?

I suppose you "spin" the story to suit your idealogy. Ummmmmm that's the only reason you wrote the article to start with, isn't it?

Posted by: avatar666 | December 17, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"I assume you support men being able to shower with women if DADT repeal passes right? If not please articulate exactly why not. It's identical."

Is not identical and you know it. Men can overpower women physically.

Why aren't homosexuals showers separated in gyms, locker rooms etc?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 4:30 PM
=================
Horrible excuse. Go ask prisons if men can overpower other men as well. There are also some women that could whup guys to shreds; especially in the military.

Your 2nd part is a good question. Not as intrusive in private life than military though.

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 4:47 PM
=====
Bad reasoning in my opinion not horrible excuse***. Sorry not meaning to sound like a jerk. You are bringing up some reasonable points in a civil way.

Posted by: Cryos | December 17, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Cryos seems to really want to be overwhelmed in the shower. He is obsessed with it.

Sport teams shower together all the time.

There have been gays in the military for centuries, and apparently those gays overwhelming all those big tough fighting men, has been a well kept secret, since not even General Homophobe Amos did not trot that absurd excuse out.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 17, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

benevolent9, have you ever thought of changing your alias?

Posted by: Frazil | December 17, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Good thing about the health industry cash explosion act of 2009, as the costs don't stop rising, everybody is going to learn where their money goes, though they are going to get a headache trying. That $6.00 generic tylenol pill on your hospital bill might come under more scrutiny as it goes to $8.00.

"I can see a "high risk" pool approach that might work. In ohio there is a high risk agency that insures houses that *no one else will*. The administration of that is a nightmare but the idea might make sense if applied to folks diagnosed with expensive and chronic illnesses."

This is old news, has been around forever. Slicing up risk pools has been the basis for insurance industry profits since insurance began. That is for example, what Medicaid, SSDI, Medicare, VA, etc. are, they are the gubmint operated risk pools for people who don't have the money to pay for the bills they run up. Then you find out, they exist side by side with and in many cases are fully embedded within the for profit risk pools. Well that is a relief, the for profit insurance industry can make a buck (lots of bucks, lots and lots) off the government's high risk pools that were created to protect the industry from high risk, to make sure the people get insured when no one else will.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

What do you expect from a Party that includes Virtually ALL the members of the KKK, Aryan Nation, "unregulated" militias, the NRA (which USED to be a collector/sportsmens' club BEFORE it sympathized with "Waco" Jesus child raper David Koresch, the Oklahoma Bomber, self-styled "Christian" Beck and his Beck-ophiles, Limburger "ditto-heads", McConnell/Boehner/Cheney/Millionaires, etc.)

The GOP is DEFINED by a single term, "IMMORAL".

Posted by: lufrank1 | December 17, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

"Do the math and let us know what the numbers are. Since you were intelligent enough to sniff out Liam's lie, you surely are intelligent enough to do the math."

I'm sure I am, and that I'm not going to.

Very interesting that you rely on CIA estimates. They've had such a great track record with things like this. /s

If you think they have any real idea what countries like China and Russia and NK spend compared to us, you are naive.

I hope we do spend more on defense than anyone else. We should be armed to the teeth. Don't you find irony in the fact that you are whining about supposed excessive and redundant military superiority at the same time you are feigning panic about START and military attacks? Sheesh.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 17, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Wow, the leftwing kooks and ravers are coming out of the woodwork like roaches.

Guess I'm out of here for a while.

You don't seem to have a good grasp on what a "lie" is, Greg. This has been a recurrent problem of yours since my first comments here.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 17, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

"Guess I'm out of here for a while."

Woo hoo!

or is it Wohoo!

I forgot.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 17, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

It is frightening that the democrats insisted on misinterpreting their mandate from 2008

AND NOW the democrats are insisting on jamming their special interest liberal agenda down the throats of Americans

TRULY DISGRACEFUL

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 17, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Oboobmacare absolutely and transparently is designed to effect a government takeover. Oboobma and the rest of the radical ideologues pushing Oboobmacare have made no bones about their ultimate aim. Denying this reality is itself an outrageous and despicable lie.

Posted by: thebump | December 17, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

The BIG LIE was preceeded by THE BIGGER LIE that made the BIG LIE possible. The BIGGER LIE has been propagated for years by Talk Radio (about a thousand stations featuring right wing professional liars). That Lie was that the media was Liberal when in fact it is not. The fact that the repubs can cosntantly repeat the BIG LIE without being challenged by interviewers and news people proves the media is not liberal. Thats why repubs had the smarts to preemptively disarm the media to make sure no one said anything about the Repub lies for fear of being called liberal. The people need the facts not labels. Thats why Tapper, Williams, Sawyer, Lauer,Viera, Couric,Stepanopolous, Scheiffer, Gregory,
Hume, Chriss Wallace, Orielly, Limbaughs', Thomas, Will, Hannity, Savage , Levin, Beck, all need to be fired and get some honest news people and commetators to replace them. For example Viera interviewed Michele Bachman the other day and Bachman said Democrats wanted to tax people on 250k gross income. Its not gross income its income after adjustments and deduction. She lied and Viera sat there and said nothing. They are all owned by the republicans and big business. Thats how the BIG LIES get believed and it needs to stop.

Posted by: jimbobkalina1 | December 17, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

I find it anusing that the "government takeover"mantra for PPACA application exists for general populace health care exists when in fact the Rivlin-Ryan Medicare overhaul plan is based almost completely on PPACA.

Hypocrisy anyone?

Posted by: valkayec | December 17, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Oboobmacare absolutely and transparently is designed to effect a government takeover. Oboobma and the rest of the radical ideologues pushing Oboobmacare have made no bones about their ultimate aim. Denying this reality is itself an outrageous and despicable lie.

your maturity is obvious to all. you must be a boob man. now can you defend this garbage you posted or is asking you to defend your lie going to take some rational thought.

Posted by: blinwilly | December 17, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Cryos-
Bad reasoning in my opinion not horrible excuse***. Sorry not meaning to sound like a jerk. You are bringing up some reasonable points in a civil way.

No worries I am not as sensitive as some here.

I agree the rigors of battlefront service pose a unique challenge. I also think that soldiers are uniquely trained to follow orders and to be disciplined. So I think they are plenty capable of handling a gay guy possibly staring at them and that gay soldiers will be disciplined enough to not make their fellow soldiers uncomfortable. Compared to some of the very real hardships soldiers regularly overcome I am confident they can meet any challenge the repeal may pose.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | December 17, 2010 10:43 PM | Report abuse

The thing that is missing in this discussion is the fact that this Health Care Bill was shoved down the American People's throats against our will by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Democrat Congress. When will the left ever admit that "We the People" DO NOT WANT THIS GOVERNMENT MANDATED HEALTH CARE BILL?

Posted by: barrysal | December 18, 2010 1:01 AM | Report abuse


I have posted this already here before You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price check search online for "Wise Health Insurance" If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy about it and believe me you are not going to loose anything!

Posted by: juanreeyes | December 18, 2010 1:14 AM | Report abuse

It's pretty hilarious that while you condemn the wide acceptance of the "inaccurate" interpretation of the Health Care "Reform" Bill you are in the same breath wholeheartedly accpeting the sound bite sized refudiation of that interpretation submitted by a "fact-checking" organization. I've read the bill and I analyze legislation for a living. Politi-Fact missed the mark widely here and in fact appears to be acting as a bit of a political shill. This bill hugely expands Federal authority and adds a ton of beauracracy to a crippled system that everyone agrees needed simplification rather than complication. From a legal standpoint, it represents yet another huge over-reach of Federal authority to cover up the fact that the government has failed to provide appropriate oversight with the authority they already had in the first place. Big Insurance while demonized publicly by smooth talking pols, are actually the biggest beneficiaries of the bill. I think the kids down at Politi-Fact have an agenda, much like the one you have Mr.Sargent.

Posted by: TwoDog1 | December 18, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

The biggest lie is this broadcast that because of the term "government takeover" people became disenchanted and fearful of the health care law. Call it what you want, government takeover or government intrusion. The people’s disenchantment, as shown in the November elections, was that we are sick and tired of government intrusion and the ram through of these ideological bills full of indulgent spending and special interest provisions without the appropriate careful due diligent review and scrutiny of such an impactful law.

Posted by: hanocul6 | December 18, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are playing word games and dems are trying to write legislation. I guess the game players can crow at their success, problem is, it's the average joe that's getting screwed. Just think how much better and beneficial the legislation could have been with honest work and debate. Yeah, it's great to choose a side and gloat when you think you've won, but in reality, you lost because the legislation wasn't as good as it could have been.

I'll side with those looking to do the work of the people instead of those trying to trick and confuse with semantics. That's the lazy way out and benefits no one.

Posted by: notfooledbydistractions1 | December 18, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

And we're supposed to be surprised and shocked when Republican's lie? Where was the Beltway Media when this was going on?

Posted by: BBear1 | December 19, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Whenever any government becomes so powerful as to determine and dictate to the citizens it governs that they must purchase something they may or may not want or need, that is a takeover of the individual citizens freedoms and right granted to each one of us by God and reconfirmed by the US constitution.
If radical liberal elites are too dumb or uneducated to understand this concept as a takeover, then they should choose to live in another country that does not so guarantee individual citizen rights and freedoms.
Facts are facts and the end does not justify the means no matter how stupid you are.
GOD bless the USA!

Posted by: rteske | December 19, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

"MOST Americans don't feel like they should be paying for others' healthcare when a lack of personal responsibility seems to be preventing millions of these future recipients from paying for it themselves." Posted by: benevolent9 | December 17, 2010 1:39 PM

I can hardly express how angry the above quote makes me. I worked steadily, responsibly and productively for 45 years as a printer and a machine painter. Last year I was diagnosed with incurable cancer. A month later I was laid off because of the sour economy. Now my COBRA health insurance subsidy has run out, thanks to the GOP. I'm sick and I can't find an insurance company who will sell me a policy. The feds have provided money to the states to set up pools to insure those of us with pre-existing medical conditions. But the monthly cost to me would be 3/4 of my income. In other words, its unavailable. I took care of a handicapped wife for 35 years and we couldn't save enough out of our paychecks to cover future costs of treating serious sickness. We did managed to pay the bills and save a little, which I've used up. How in God's name does this chain of events make me irresponsible?

I hope you never get truly sick and have to go through the insurance hell I'm in. I no longer have a doctor, I've had to skip the vital blood tests that are key to keeping me alive. I'll tell you who is irresponsible. Its you conservatives who wilfully and selfishly shirk your responsibility to your country and its citizens. You'll face Jesus some day, and I pity you.

Posted by: gitarpickr | December 22, 2010 6:47 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company