“The claim” was made by different people, who meant different things. To the extent that some people based it on the aspect of the bill you refer to, it was a false claim (though it may have been a misunderstanding rather than “lie”).
Supporters of the bill like to focus on those opponents who referenced the discussion language angle, in a “gotcha” manner, so as to head off all consideration of the issue. But it’s a legitimate issue.
For single payer healthcare, arguably. However, since that was never on the table, it’s not a legitimate issue at all.
Plan terms for plans offered on the exchanges will be under the control of the government.
That’s very amusing, but I’m sure you realize that my OP was not intended to suggest anything other than ‘prize’ was the end milestone of the election process, not a final goal or anything like RTFirefly’s tirade suggested.
I didn’t say or do anything in that post, or overall, to open myself to the criticism that RTFirefly levels at me.
But Bricker - the problem with your amusing scenario is that once the job-seeking kid gets the job… He simply spends ALL of his time applying for the next job and he DOES NOT ACTUALLY DO THE JOB HE WAS HIRED TO DO.
He’s continually at the photocopier making copies of his resume. He books long lunches to do informational interviews with potential employers. He spends hours at the water cooler telling everyone how hard he works, and how he’d make an excellent employee. He never stops looking for work long enough TO ACTUALLY DO SOME WORK.
That’s what a party in perpetual campaign mode looks like. You have a new leader of the House whose stated first priority, FIRST priority mind you, is to make sure the president is defeated in two years.
They have JUST BEEN ELECTED and they are focusing on the next job interview, not the job at hand.
In the sense that the government has to approve them, yes. Beyond that, the government will not be involved. Again, there is no basis to the claim.
What I said in the OP:
That seems to me to be a distinction without much difference.
In any event, you apparently disagree about the impact of government control of health care in the HCR bill, as is your right. That doesn’t make those who disagree with you liars. And conversely, if you persistently misrepresent what they’re saying, it’s you who have to answer for the same charge.
FWIW, here’s Newt Gingrich on Death Panels. Not quite what you and yours are claiming.
Jesus tapdancing Christ. Who regulates health insurance right now? Government. Who decides whether my cancer treatment is covered? Not the government, and nothing in the HCR bill changes that.
When you say that “the claim was made by different people, who meant different things”, you are wrong. The claim was made by Sarah Palin, and while different people may have echoed it, anyone who was using the term “death panel” clearly meant the same thing. If they said “government rationing of health care”, they may not have.
The government is being given a lot more power and control by this bill.
As with many other aspects of the bill, there are a lot of predictable consequences that were not written into the law but are just as valid considerations as are the parts that are.
In the context of this thread, that’s what counts.
The claim here is that Republican opposition to HCR was based on a lie. Is this all based on the fact that one person who did not even hold federal office said something innacurate?
On a related note, I saw a great article by David Brooks in the NYT last week, which said (in part):
Regardless of what the original claim here is, I took issue with your statement that the “death panel” claim was valid at its core. Will you admit that it was in fact demonstrably false?
You shouldn’t have treated my comment without regard for the context in which it was made.
I said earlier:
What more are you looking for?
The biggest problem with the whole “death panel” thing is the implication that this is a reason to oppose the bill. It might be, if it weren’t for the fact that we have death panels right now. The death panels are one of the things the Democrats were trying to get rid of. Yeah, they’re private-sector death panels, but I’m not sure how that really makes they guy they decide to let die feel any better about it.
I am looking for an admission that anybody who used the term “death panel” in any context was scaremongering.
He’s happy because he has more freedoms.
That’s a very valid viewpoint.
The counter-argument is that there are competing private plans these days, and a person can chose a plan with a different approach to end-of-life care, if that’s important to him. There would be less flexibility under a government-run (or heavily regulated) scenario. Especially as government bureaucrats tend to be more inured from public opinion than private companies who need to sell their product.
But your position is valid too. I’m just saying that someone who has a different perspective has a valid position as well, and is not necessarily motivated by political considerations in maintaining that position.
Anybody? I’m sorry, I can’t give you that kind of open-ended blanket “admission”. I don’t know who you’re even referring to - I’ve not seen that anyone (of consequence) specifically used the term beyond Palin herself. But I’m sure there could have been many people who used the term as a kind of short-hand for the issues I’m discussing here. As previous, politics is full of hyperbole.
[On that note, what do you think of Robert Bork’s America?]
Strange but everybody I know who got serious illnesses, end up screaming in agony over dealing with health care not providers. They have to fight them over and over. They have to resubmit bills several times. They spend the last moments of their lives on phone lines fighting with insurance companies. None of them bitched about the government.
My brother died of brain cancer last year. His wife wept over the phone about her fights with the health care company . She was trying to take care of her dying husband, and the insurance companies gave her no peace. It was an endless battle. He was in the health care business too.
Another friend got lymphoma from his military job in Kuwait. He was terrified of losing his home because his insurance companies kept denying treatments the doctor said he needed. He had to keep paying for procedures on his own. He survived, but now he hates our insurance system. He was a big believer in American medical system, until he got sick and needed them.
NO.
Or in the alternative, yes, and you’re scaremongering right now.
As opposed to civilian bureaucrats that are paid bonuses based on how many people and how many dollars they deny.
It’s amazing to me that the right fears relatively anonymous health care rationing by the government MORE than incentivised rationing by insurance companies that profit from withholding health care.
Don’t they have faith in capitalism?
I have Medicare. Once a year they send me a booklet telling me what tests and preventative care I qualify for. They encourage me to get physicals and checkups. They are better off if I stay healthy. They like it if i monitor my health and get flu shots.
Can you imagine a health system that wants to keep their members healthy?
Private insurance will give you great coverage when you are a member of a young and healthy demographic. But as you age and the possibilities of you getting sick increase, they want you gone.