“I can’t believe the lack of transparency!” said politicians who support unregulated super PAC expenditures.
This is nonsense. The only reason why the words “death panels” get used so much is that those who supports the ACA would much rather refute claims about death panels than mount a serious defense of the law, or address the arguments that opponents of the law are actually making. Over the past five years I’ve read hundreds of clear, intelligent, and thorough articles by opponents of the ACA in a variety of newspapers, magazines, and websites. None of those articles mentioned “death panels”. Rather, they focused on the facts about the law.
“We have to pass the law to know what’s in it”
Laws are often complex for reasons which have nothing to do with deceiving the public. Rather, they’re complex because of the policy compromises and the fudges that have to be made to get the law passed. I can’t comment on the ACA specifically, not having read the legislation or knowing that much about it, but it’s a safe bet that what started out as a fairly clean and consistent conception of a funding mechanism was complicated and degraded by various changes, modifications, etc introduced to secure support from various quarters. If the end result is complex and unintelligible legislation, that usually points to the underlying policy being complex and unintelligible.
To be fair, you misquoted Nanci Pelosi.
I just thought it was relevant to point that out, since we are talking about political deception and all. That misquote was not a mistake, but a deliberate lie (although not necessarily by you, as I assume you are just parroting whatever partisan in the chain of liars you happened to hear that from) specifically crafted to make it appear that she was saying something she was not.
Her actual quote was “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it, away from the fog of controversy.” In context, (context matters!) the statement was part of a point she was making about the misinformation, fear mongering (death panels!), and occasionally even outright lies being told by opponents of the legislation. The statement actually means “when the bill is passed, you will see the benefits of it,” which is something a lot less controversial than “we’re not really sure what this thing will do…fuck it, let’s go! wheeeeeeee!”
Who has expressed a sentiment like that? Certainly not me.
So who exactly do you think came up with the idea of death panels–the law’s supporters?
I don’t deny that there were intelligent critiques of the law, just as there were intelligent and honest defenses of the law. My point is that the law’s best-funded and best-publicized detractors went straight to the lie instead of relying on honest criticism.
Sorry, but the “death panels” thing was believed by no one, nor was it a common talking point among conservatives. It came entirely from the deluded mind of Sarah Palin and was then seized on by supporters of the law to use as a way to discredit opposition. It can’t even be fairly called a lie, since I’m sure Palin actually believed it.
As for the true stuff conservatives told about the law:
- You won’t be able to keep your insurance
- You won’t be able to keep your doctor
- The mandate is a tax
- Health care costs will go up, not down
- The law will increase the deficit, not decrease it
were all true. Although supporters of the law insisted that all five criticisms weren’t just wrong, but also lies. It was quite the campaign of deception.
1 and 2) The vast majority of people were able to keep their insurance and their doctor. If this was a “lie”, it was a lie for a tiny percentage of Americans, and true for the vast majority. He certainly wasn’t lying to me!
3) Yep. Political/lawyer wrangling about language.
4 and 5) are not supported by the statistics. If you disagree, you’ll have to provide cites that show that the law caused a greater increase in cost/deficit than were predicted to take place without the law, and I’m pretty sure the opposite is true.
I kept my own insurance. Most people who had policies were able to as well. Some had policies that were not up to the standards of the ACA and had to upgrade their junk insurance. Some insurers used the ACA as an excuse to get out of the market. But the vast majority kept their insurance.
I kept my own doctor. Most people who had doctors were able to as well. Some doctors chose not to accept some insurance providers’ clients, but this cannot be blamed on the ACA unless one is mentally challenged.
I didn’t pay any tax. If you are insured, you didn’t pay any tax.
The rise in health care costs has slowed dramatically since the ACA.
The deficit is a mere shadow of what it was when Chimpy left office.
#4 is true in the absolute sense. The President promised that health costs would drop by $2500 per family, on average. Not true. Prices have continued to rise, albeit more slowly than before.
#5 is in dispute. Because the CBO scored it as such, supporters of the law went so far as to decide this was holy writ and anyone who disagreed was not just mistaken, but lying. However, the CBO made it clear that the cost savings and revenues would actually have to go into effect for the deficit to go down. Most of those things are still not in effect and have proven politically difficult for the administration to actually put into effect.
I just dispute that there was a campaign of lies to defeat ACA anywhere near the scale of the campaign of lies used to sell it. The supporters of the law even lied about what opponents believed, as shown by the “death panels” debate, which basically consisted of ACA supporters knocking over a strong man so as to avoid debating the actual issues around the law.
His claim was that health care costs would be lower than they would be without the bill.
“Socialism”, “government takeover”, “disaster”, etc… these are all lies used by the Republicans in their attacks that were far, far more egregious (in my view) than any used to support the law.
I think you mean “straw man”… but considering the Republican base, it wouldn’t stretch credibility to believe that many actually did believe the “death panels” stuff.
Poppycock and balderdash. Death panels was just one lie. Government takeover of health care, government getting between you and you doctor were just two of the others. Then there was “SOCIALISM!”.
If each side had a Pinocchio, the one on the pro-ACA side would have grown its nose one hundredth of a millimeter while the one on the anti-ACA side would have grown its nose several feet.
That’s not what he said:
Those are characterizations of the law, not lies about things that are actual facts. the Democrats lied about specific things in the law. If the best you can come up with is “Death panels” and “socialism” then it’s pretty clear which side engaged in more deception.
To the extent they did, it wouldn’t be because Sarah Palin started an anti-death panels movement. It would be because they heard there were no death panels in the law from Democrats, which would have told them that there must certainly be death panels in the law after all.
Find me a Republican saying that they had to lie about the law to defeat it. We’ve got a few examples of Democrats admitting the deception was necessary.
You haven’t provided any evidence that Democrats lied about the law. Republicans are loathe to admit that they have lied about the ACA every step of the way, why would they? Their base happily swallows every turd coming out of their ass.
- You can keep your plan if you like it
- You can keep your doctor
- Health care costs will drop
- The mandate isn’t a tax
How many times must you post this drivel and have it debunked?
BTW, you can’t call the “socialism” charge a lie, because many supporters say that ACA is supposed to lead to single payer.
Strangely, the lawyerly excuses for why those things were actually the truth haven’t resonated too well with the public. Shockingly, “you didn’t read the fine print” failed to gain the law more acceptance.
I think it’s easier for one side to fire off bumper sticker quotes than another side to fire off paragraphs to debunk them. People don’t want to bother with the details, if it doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker or a one line sound bite, you lose them. That Republicans can mislead low-information voters is hardly news.