Health Care Lies

Here's my point-by-point reply:

1. ObamaCare’s centerpiece, a Medicare-like “public option,” would cause millions of Americans to lose their employer-provided health insurance.

Millions of Americans have already lost, or never had, employer-provided health insurance. Moreover, those who lose their employer-provided health insurance will be able to get insurance, regardless of their income or pre-existing conditions. A "public option" might cause some reduction in employer provided health care, but the figure cited (118 million) from the Lewin Group is absurdly high. Perhaps a consequence of the Lewin Group's status as a wholly-owned arm of the health care industry?

2. Government-run health care would lead to rationing.

Private health care has already led to rationing, but not on a rational basis. Denying care is the primary method of reducing costs practiced by private insurers. Right now, care is rationed based on ability to pay, and the decisions of insurance executives. Increased competition and choice does not preclude a public option, and a public option does not require a reduction in care to reduce costs - just a reduction in the profit motive as the primary driver of health care.

3. ObamaCare would cost a fortune, and we’re already running higher deficits than during the Great Depression.

ObamaCare would "bend the curve" in the long term, and make it possible for health care to survive the retiring boomers who would otherwise break it. We are running higher deficits than ever because the last eight years were a non-stop assault on the US economy and government. It takes a lot of money to repair the kind of damage done by the Bush administration.

Even so, ObamaCare will expand health coverage, reduce health care expenditures, and remove the long-term risk of insolvency in Medicare. Arbitrarily reducing deficits in the midst of a financial crisis is a proven loser.

4. ObamaCare would ruin private insurance.

ObamaCare does not ruin private insurance. It simply gives consumers another choice, and prevents gaps in coverage due to job loss or pre-existing conditions. The "public option" uses government to efficiently cover care for millions of Americans, as is currently done by Medicare. There is no evidence that a public option would reduce the quality of private care - it is much more likely that private competition will motivate improvements in care as private companies work to compete.

5. ObamaCare would encourage people to leave the medical profession.

This is absurd. People do not go into the medical profession as a way to make themselves rich - and if they do, they should not be encouraged. It is much more likely that employment in the health sector would be much higher, because with more people covered by insurance, there would be more people with access to care. There is no reason to believe that improved and expanded insurance coverage would be a deterrent to those interested in practicing medicine.

6. In addition to increasing deficits, ObamaCare would increase overall health costs.

Your "study" shows nothing about the overall costs of health care. You do not address any of the collateral benefits of having health coverage, and do not recognize the impact of demographics on program costs.

In short, you have no evidence. Your supposed evidence simply shows how private insurers can make a bigger profit by denying care to millions of Americans. That's not evidence of anything about overall health costs.

7. Based on Medicare’s track record, ObamaCare’s costs would almost certainly exceed estimates.

ObamaCare could exceed cost estimates by a very large margin and still be much more cost-effective than our current system.

8. ObamaCare would create a two-tiered health-care system, to the detriment of the middle class.

We already have a two-tiered health-care system, to the detriment of the middle and lower classes. The rich will always get whatever care they want, but for the middle class health reform would at least preserve access to care that is often jeopardized in our current system. There is again, no evidence that the middle class would suffer worse health under a public system, but plenty of evidence from overseas that public health care is more effective and efficient than our private system.

9. ObamaCare would kill the prospects for real reform.

No real reform has been forthcoming for some time - now is the best chance we will ever have. ObamaCare ends unfair practices that impact the uninsured, and encourages a more vibrant free market in which consumers can shop for value - for the best care, at the best prices. Rather than being excluded from care due to pre-existing conditions, or compelled to join the plan of an employer, under ObamaCare the choice would be restored to each of us.

ObamaCare is real reform.

10. The centralization of power in Washington saps the strength of our citizenry and slowly deprives us of liberty.

This is just a tag line to get folks interested in your "think-tank". Liberty without life is not very valuable - health care reform serves the general welfare, very much in keeping with the spirit of the founders. ObamaCare is about balancing the strength of the citizenry against the strength of private interests that currently are not serving the public interest.

Corporations have an obligation to be good citizens - if they cannot do so voluntarily, it is the place of government to set them straight. We the People grant the corporate charter, and have every right to revoke it.

We need ObamaCare.

The Density of Palin: Black Hole of Media Intelligence

I’m waiting for Palin to present her alternative health care reform plan.

But I’m not holding my breath.

She’s got nothing to offer here. I don’t see anyone flummoxed, just a big chunk of the GOP that is brain-dead and/or brain-washed into buying whatever this woman has for sale.
“Death panels” are not part of this legislation, and are nothing but an inflammatory rhetorical device without basis in fact – a definition that fits Palin herself as well.

ACLU: Hypocrisy?

The ACLU defends the rights of the people, not the rights of government functionaries. There is nothing selective about the support for civil liberties offered by the ACLU.

Detainees who have had their rights denied need the ACLU to help defend their rights under the constitution. Government agents already have the power of the government behind them – there is no need for the ACLU to defend them, because they are authorized agents of the state, and are not being prevented from exercising their civil liberties.

The ACLU is currently working on collecting information on the torture and illegal detention of persons under CIA and other programs. The persistent efforts of the ACLU have helped to make clear the depth and extent of illegal activity perpetrated by the previous administration, and may well lead to prosecution of administration apologists who issued legal opinions to authorize plainly unconstitutional activities.

Waste is not the absence of profit

Without government intervention in the health care market, most Americans would see no benefit from the advances in medical technology over the past fifty years. There is plenty of waste in a private market, but not all of this waste is in the form of money. Human potential is also wasted in the private system, that does not value human beings, but instead protects merely their money.

I want an option for medical coverage that doesn’t line the pockets of these folks, thanks.

Rationing in Oregon? Good

Without the public option, rationing is worse. To call the situation in Oregon as nightmare is to misunderstand the nature and extent of the issues with our health care system. Denial of care is much more common and insidious when practiced for profit. I’d take Oregon’s system over a purely private system any day.

GOP Pretending to be Peaceful

How large is the audience that believes this garbage? This Godwin-baiting meme of Hitler as a leftist is would be merely silly if it were not so sinister.

Claiming that the left is the source of political violence does not make it so. A quick review of history reveals the ignorance of this assertion. People are not motivated to violence by democratic collectivists. They are motivated to violence by authoritarian leaders who harness nationalistic and religious memes to further their own political power.

The characterization of Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and Castro as somehow representing democratic socialism only demonstrates the ignorance of the author.

Science is fine. What's wrong with the GOP?

AGW deniers generally share a common financial interest in promoting their views. That’s why I was not surprised that the first “reference” in the article is to a commercial outlet for Plimer’s book. Ian Plimer is a Professor of Mining Geology with a background in the mining industry. His expertise in climate science is questionable, to be generous – his financial and career interests are transparent.

Although his book has proven popular with a certain segment of the public, it has been widely panned in the scientific community, simply because the “science” content is nothing but a series of cherry-picked primary sources, selected without regard for accuracy or veracity.

The “technological revolution” that is needed to halt global warming is not “unimaginable” except to those whose imaginations have ceased to function. Without engaging in the work to bring about this revolution, we are doomed to a future of dwindling fossil fuel resources, ongoing climate disruption, and eventually a very nasty and rapid rise in sea level worldwide due to continued carbon emissions.

There is no downside in moving to a sustainable, carbon-neutral economy – it is in the end a cleaner and more cost effective way to power an economy once the investment in infrastructure is in place. Wholesale rejection of mainstream scientific thought (”I will never believe the British Medical Journal again, and I have real doubts about the Lancet. The journals Nature and Science have become shockingly corrupt and dishonest on global warming.”) is one of the sure signs of late-stage global warming denial.

If the GOP continues to ignore the overwhelming evidence of AGW, and relies on the pseudo-scientists of the world for support, it truly is one of the worst times for science. Peer-review and broad consensus are the basis of scientific knowledge, and AGW deniers fail miserably on both counts. There is no peer-reviewed evidence that refutes the well-documented long-term warming that has been observed since the beginning of scientific measurements, and the broad consensus supports theories that recognize the impact of human activity on the global environment.

It is the best of times, in the sense that science can identify and propose remedies for the damage that humans do to their environment, and technology provides the tools to made these changes. It is only the political mechanism that is paralyzed by oligarchy. But even the biggest players in the fossil fuel game can see the their future will be very different. It is not possible to deny the science forever, as the consequences of warming are becoming more obvious every year.

Abortion is health care! PJM Exclusive!

It’s pretty clear the author does not understand the principles he espouses.

Government-owned health care will place bureaucrats in Washington in charge of your health care options. This is wrong. Health care decisions must be made by you and your doctor.

If you really think that health care decisions should be made by the doctor and patient, covering abortion seems pretty logical. Are you sure that you believe that placing “bureaucrats in Washington in charge of your health care options” is not what you are advocating?

It also seems the author doesn’t understand that taxes are not apportioned according to taxpayer earmarks.

Americans who are morally opposed to abortion should not have to pay for abortions with their tax dollars against their will.

I am an American morally opposed to pointless foreign wars – but I continue to pay my taxes because I understand that it is the legislative process that makes changes in policy – not petulance. Abortions should not be treated differently from other medical procedures. Coverage that does not include abortion is deficient – a specific exclusion is simply bad medicine. If you don’t want to pay taxes, that’s your call. But compromising reproductive health care for political purposes is, in the author’s own words, “wrong”. Leave the health care decisions to the doctor and patient.

Banning Burqas is Bad

So now, instead of a war on terror, we should start a war on Islamic fashion?

Is this really the current thinking in the shallow end of the pool?

This is an issue of the most fundamental freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution. Banning the garb of a specific religious sect with no rational justification is a frontal attack on civil liberties.

I believe each and every person on the planet should have the right to choose what they want to wear - or not to wear. Banning the burqa is not the answer.

Religious garb should not be subject to discriminatory laws. If you don’t like the burqa, don’t wear one. But grow up and face the fact that some do choose it, and show some respect for that choice.

Why Palin Will Fail - Jennifer Rubin is Right (for once)

The central message is that serious times require serious candidates.

I couldn’t agree more.

Surprised?

Sarah Palin is a gift that keeps on giving for the left. Watching frantic & confused GOP response is quite entertaining. She has 0 chance of winning a national election, but it will be great sport to watch her cripple the GOP for a generation.

A party with so little remaining credibility shows that even when you may think you have reached the bottom of the barrel, somebody will find a way to keep digging. I hope Palin remains prominent - nothing but a bonus for the Dems.

Party on!

Fundamentalism: Iran v. USA

Apparently Frank F did not understand what Frank S wrote. Let me summarize.

Iran is one example of what can happen when religious conservatives control the political landscape. The author was formerly part of an American Christian movement with aims very similar to those of the Iranian Muslims currently ruling that country.

Mandatory prayer in school, anti-gay laws, abortion bans, elective wars, capital punishment, rolling back civil rights, defeating the union movement - all of these are issues that the Iranian Mullahs and the American Christians would see eye-to-eye on.

Frank Schaeffer provides a unique insiders perspective into the motives and tactics of the fringe elements that promote theocracy in the USA. Oppressive religion is offensive to American values, whether Christian or any other faith.

The similarity of Christian Fundamentalists with Islamic Fundamentalists is not imaginary - it is real, and a very serious threat to the Republic. Our secular government is our greatest innovation, and the basic reason that the American system has been so successful, and so widely emulated. Continued vigilance is required to protect and defend our Constitution from being perverted in the service of religion.

Tea Party Cancellation

This is just a simple case of a business owner defending his interests. Simon apparently has a legal right to refuse access to this property, and that right trumps the protest.

The Tea Party should be held on property that belongs to the public. The irony would only be too delicious.

Marriage for Procreation, or Recreation?

Marriage vows don’t typically say anything about children. The purpose of marriage is the union of two persons in a legal bond. Regardless of the gender of the spouses, supporting long term relationships is the proper role of the government in sanctioning marriage.

There is no special reason the government should prefer that people raise their biological children rather than adoptees. The argument on grounds of procreation is quite strained, and ultimately fails because it is clearly not reflective of the current practice of hetero marriage.

Gay marriage is not a threat to anyone, and is pretty clearly being resisted for religious reasons that have no place in public policy.

Union Renaissance?

I think it’s about time that workers got their right to organize back.

When an employer can refuse to certify a union, regardless of the workers’ decision, that’s a failure of democracy.

Card check is one thing that could very much improve the lives of lower income workers, who have been losing ground for decades now. If the Democrats can make it happen, they deserve their rewards.

Hate Speech and Conservative Vigilantism

The big problem is that so much of what passes for political discourse now depends on hyperbole. “Baby Killer” would be the recent pertinent example. Talking points and language are important.

The choice to use inflammatory, violent and hateful imagery is a conscious one, with predictable outcomes. It is possible to have civil discourse without so much frothing at the mouth, or at least without the deliberate provocation.

Violence in the service of religion or politics is a very dangerous tool. When in the service of both, it is decidedly deadly. I don’t see this dynamic as a significant part of the left wing - this violence is a conservative and reactionary response to liberal society.

So long as belief in imaginary omnipotents continues, the deranged adherents of such ideologies are likely to find cause to spread the word by the sword. The only long term solution is secular government and education.

Bumpy road for card check?

I don’t see this as any big difficulty for Democrats. Passing some version of card check is a “pro worker” bona fide that is not likely to be a net loser for the Democrats. Labor has supported the left through a long stretch of GOP governance, and they will extract a reward of some kind. Whether card check and arbitration survive in the final bill is hard to say - but labor will get a bill.

There may be some temporary setbacks in isolated elections, but success on this issue is not likely to bite the left very hard. Opposition to unions is weak because of a depressed labor market and faltering economy. Job security and stable wages are starting to look a lot more attractive to the right-to-work folks that are now standing in the unemployment line.

Sonia Sotomayor is likely to be confirmed before the end of August, and big labor will probably get their bill in time for Thanksgiving. It will be a merry xmas for the Dems.

Media Bias? Oh, yes there is...

There is not a double standard, despite continued protests from the fringe such as this.

The murder of Doctor Tiller was political terror, committed by a known activist from the Pro-life movement. Doctor Tiller himself was, as you say “notorious” - in other words, a public figure. His killing was an assassination. That’s a far cry from the essentially random violence against non-specific military recruiters. Tiller was living under threat - the recruiters not so much.

One act was, as Obama stated, heinous - attacking a well known advocate for women’s rights, a peaceful physician, who had been attacked before, at his church, with the specific intent of stopping his medical care for patients. The other was senseless - attacking military recruiters without a clear reason or a cause.

I understand it is fun to claim media bias in this type of situation - but our soldiers are dying every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. Military deaths at home are an extension of the same conflict. Doctor Tiller’s death is significantly more newsworthy, and rightly so.

The only double standard here is the presumption that all Muslims deserve to be tarred with the broad brush of terrorism, while Christians who engage in violence are qualified as “extremist”. Some consistency on this point would be welcome. If Long’s killer is a “follower of Allah”, isn’t Roeder a “follower of Christ”? References made in this article to Roeder’s religion are qualified, but Long’s [killer's] religion is not accorded the same respect. Why the double standard?

Terrorism is no less real when it is perpetrated by the right wing at home. Make no mistake - both acts of violence are the result of fundamentalist religious extremism, perpetrated by followers of a jealous “God”. Whether they carry a cross or a crescent matters not to the victims.

Tiller Murder is Not Fiction

The pattern is pretty clear. Religious fanatics, whether Taliban or Born-again, appear to be losing the long-term cultural battle. Rather than try to adapt to a changing world, the response of the religious fanatic is to lash out in violence against the “other”.

Women’s rights, freedom of speech and thought, and other “liberal” values are simply not compatible with the backwards thinking of right wing zealots.

Dr. Tiller - killed in cold blood

Tiller spent his life selflessly and heroically assisting women who faced difficult circumstances. His killer, and those who pretend this murder was justified, are not citizens. They are terrorists. Tiller saved the lives of countless young women, and is a hero.

Go ahead and celebrate - it makes it easier to see who here is truly free of moral qualms. This peaceful non-violent physician was shot to death in his church. Your approval reveals that Christianity is on the same path as Islam.

We are a nation of laws, but without brave men like Dr. Tiller, the law fails us.