Explain why there’s any reason involved in fearing single payer. Not preferring it is one thing and even that should require some facts. Explain why there’s any reason involved in the false conclusion and implication that single payer would eliminate private insurance when it hasn’t in other countries?
Should we defend people’s right to believe falsehoods and hold irrational fears? Is it patriotism to defend people’s right to spread those false notions and exploit people’s concerns?
It’s not presented as an opinion is it? It’s presented as a factual and logical conclusion. It isn’t either based on the clips in the video. At best it might be an honest mistake, but that kind of video rarely is. Add that there’s no evidence that single payer would eliminate private insurance and the lie becomes more obvious.
If you haven’t availed yourself of the HCR arguments sufficiently to even understand what the fear is and why—which is extremely basic—I’m not going to waste my time explaining why opinions are not “lies”.
I guess I missed the reality that every time someone expresses an opinion they preface it with, “This is only my opinion…”. :rolleyes:
It could lead to most Americans overwhelmingly favoring government insurance if the tax incentives are structured in a way to give a competitive advantage to the public option. But even absent this sort of thumb-on-the-scales manipulation, a concern which Obama has explicitly addressed, a public option could simply be more efficient anyway. In which case, scads of people would leave the inefficient private insurance system voluntarily to achieve better, cheaper care with the public option. And yeah, some people content with their present insurance would lose it and have to grudgingly switch, but only because their conventional insurance company was too inefficient to compete.
But there’s another possibility: the increased competition from the public option and improved regulation of the insurance industry will leave a mixture of public and private insurance. Given the right set of rules, we could end up with better, cheaper options for the majority of people regardless of whether they choose public or private health insurance. Other advanced countries have achieved universal care with a mixed system. Add to that the fact that the US spends almost twice as much per capita on health care, without achieving better results or even covering everyone, and the situation becomes clear.
Gosh that’s convenient for you. I’m speaking of the significant difference between legitimate questions and concerns and irrational fears encouraged and spread intentionally by crap like that video.
Hmmm, can I borrow your tactics and ask you to prove it’s intended as an opinion?
Did you miss the reality that bullshit videos and edited clips like that one are often intentionally used to for misrepresentation? The title is a declarative statement not a question.
regardless, you reminded me several times that the thread is about a particular conversation. I think we’ve established that Kurtz was wrong and Douglas was right.
Magellan, don’t you think this inference is invalid?
P1: Obama wants to eliminate employer coverage.
P2: Some people think eliminating employer coverage will lead to a single-payer system.
C: Obama is biased towards a single-payer system.
This seems to me to be your argument, but am I misunderstanding you?
If I’m not misunderstanding you–if that is indeed what you are trying to argue here–then how do you get from those premises to that conclusion? If I want to eat an apple and you think apples are evil, that doesn’t mean I’m biased toward evil. Rather, perhaps I simply don’t agree with you that apples are evil.
No, that is not what I am arguing. I agree with you that that conclusion does not follow from those premises. I’m not even trying to argue the conclusion you have. Here’s the way I’d frame your premises and conclusion.
P1: We know Obama wants to reform health care by having a public option
P2: It is reasonable to hold that by having a public option, employer-sponsored private insurance might wither and die (due to inequitable competition), resulting in a single-payer system (intentional or not)
P3: Obama is on record saying his preference is a single-payer system (he may or may not still hold this position)
P4: there is further evidence (his quote) that lends credence to the idea that a single-payer system is what he would like
C: Obama might be arguing for UHC with a public option because he thinks—and wants—it to lead to a single payer system
The point of this thread is that there are people who fear a single-payer system. Whether a SP system is great or sucks is immaterial. These people are entitled to that opinion. And it is not an extreme opinion. Many members of congress are arguing this. So we have:
People with a legitimate concern
Some of these people put together a video showing that Obama may be more a champion of a single payer system than he is admitting now
While this evidence might not be conclusive, it is correct. It shows Obama using his own words.
Then we have Linda Douglass telling people that the video is incorrect. Not that it is incomplete, or tells half the story, but that it is wrong. Even Kurtz calls her on this. She’s attempting to quash and marginalize people raising a legitimate concern.
I’d have no problem with her attempting to argue her side, offering the pros of the position. Or with her arguing that Obama no longer holds those views. Or doesn’t hold those views and attempt to explain away each of the quotes in the video. But that is not what she does. She does not address them. She simply waves her hand and deems the video incorrect in toto, characterizing it as “disinformation” and “misinformation”.** Then when Kurtz mentions to her that it’s apparent that Obama had a different position (single payer, as per the video) before he was President (See video from 2:00 - 3:00) SHE DENIES it. I haven’t seen such a brazen lie since Baghdad Bob graced the airwaves, when as we’re looking at tanks rolling into Baghdad he’s on TV saying “these reports of tanks rolling into Baghdad are lies, fantasies.”**
The clip documenting his advocacy for a single-payer system is from 2003. Barack Obama became a United States Senator in January, 2005. Maybe she’s wrong on this, and he changed his mind sometime after entering the Senate. Then again, he could’ve just as easily changed his mind during his Senate campaign. Even if she’s wrong, it’s not a earth-shattering mistake. It fits the clips we have, which Kurtz couldn’t even manage to do. He is simply mistaken in his next comment:
No, he did not talk in that clip about transitioning to single-payer. He talked about transitioning away from employer-based insurance.
And for this, she gets called a “lying bitch”. Fantastic.
Guess what job he had before he was elected to the U.S. Senate.
Answer (as per Wikipedia):
Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama
Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from Illinois’s 13th District, which at that time spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn.[45]
What part of “But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately” indicates that Obama doesn’t view elimination of employer coverage as a future goal?
I guess that’s technically true. It didn’t even cross my mind before. Did it cross their minds during their conversation?
Is that what Kurtz had in mind with his question? Even if it was, is that how Douglass interpreted it? Why would they have been thinking about his state career, when national political conversations only deal with United States Senators? Human language is imprecise, and so it doesn’t mean somebody’s lying every time there’s a misunderstanding.
I don’t see anyone denying that. There are good reasons to move away from employer-based insurance, even without a single-payer system.
No, it’s not. Obama was talking about a transition to state or federal insurance. That is what he said it would take ten or fifteen years to transition to.
If he meant a transition away from employer to a mix of private and federal and state coverage, then he should have said so. He did not. He said, quite clearly, that he was talking about a transition to a federal or state pool. That’s what he said his ideal was. No mention of retaining private insurance at all.
And I think we have established that Douglass’ assertion that Obama did not support a single payor system is a quite straightforward lie. He says exactly that in the video, and no amount of context can change “I happen to be a proponent of a single payor system” to “I am not a proponent of a single payor system”. He does have a different position. Douglass lied.
I appreciate you laying it out like this. I think this is a pretty reasonable position with the possible exception of some details of P2. I think it’s reasonable to expect some private insurers to fail but unrealistic to expect all to whither and die based on the real evidence of countries that already have UHC.
My point is that fearing single payer without evidence is an irrational fear. It seems obvious to me that some in the opposition are using, encouraging this irrational fear to aide their agenda. To the media it may be just sensationalism for ratings rather than malicious intent but it’s sure not journalism.
Some kids are afraid of the dark and adults have irrational fears and that’s reality. They need to be dealt with but not by treating them as rational or fact based. Certainly not by giving those who eagerly exploit them any credibility.
No she isn’t. She says right up front that her goal and her job is to clarify the white house position and the actual details of the proposal being discussed, specifically dealing with rumors and the distorted and incorrect information being spread by the opposition. You’ve said you have no objection to that.
I’m surprised and disappointed that Kurtz seemed bewildered about the concept of cobbling together sound bites and clips to create a false impression. It’s something any reasonable person should grasp and a reporter even more so.
“But it’s his own words” he says. Yes they are, selectively spliced together and taken out of context and proper time frame. Whether the point the video is making is valid or not is a different question and the one he should have dealt with.
As I pointed out before Kurtz gets it wrong and in doing so demonstrates how that type of video works.
speaking of the video title “wants to eliminate private insurance”
Wrong on two counts. Obama was not a Senator in 2003 when he mentions single payer* and *single payer does not eliminate private insurance.
Kurtz again associates Obama’s brief mention of single payer in 03 ignoring the fact that Obama was not a Senator at the time. He’s wrong. He also misquotes Obama from the video changing employer based insurance to “fully government insurance” supporting the false video title. He’s wrong again.
This is in line with Obama as Senator which was her statement. Yes, it’s possible Obama still thinks single payer is a good way to go to eventually if it works out. Catering to an irrational fear of that possibility is not furthering the health care debate in any way. Real policy is about drawing lines and having the ability to reevaluate them and change them when necessary. It’s not catering to irrational fears to prevent progress.
Wrong. She responds to Kutz’s incorrect statement and says he did not have a different position as Senator I pointed out that she is correct and Kurtz was wrong. Anything else?
If she is you’ve completely failed to demonstrate it.
I also notice that they speak of a web site the WH is putting up to answer questions and concerns and offer details about the bill. It encourages people to report rumors or and ask question so the issue can be dealt with factually.
The GOP response which Kurtz seems to validate is to accuse the WH of creating an enemies list and accusing them of asking citizens to turn in their neighbors. What bullshit. Show me where they are asking for any personal information about anyone. They want the details of the rumor :not the person spreading it} or bad information so they can refute it with facts. That’s how honest debate works.
technically correct. Kurtz equates the 2003 clip with the 2007 one in trying to claim that Obama obviously had a different position when he was Senator. Which Senator job do you honestly think he was referring to? Which was Douglas referring to?
Yes, it’s remotely possible he understood the difference between state Senator and US Senator and just neglected to mention it. Given his other mistakes I doubt it. Even if that is the case Douglas is clearly speaking of Obama as US Senator and his campaign for president {that she worked on} That would mean they were speaking past each other and she is not a lying bitch. Anything else?
That is not contained within his actual words in the clip. Where are you getting this conclusion from?
No he didn’t. This is exactly the kind of cobbling Douglas was referring to. In one clip he talks of people without an employer option having a government option. In a separate clip he speaks of transitioning away from Employer based insurance. If truly concerned citizens want to provide that entire video so we can see it in context I’d be interested in watching it. As it is, transitioning away from Employer based insurance does not mean eliminating private insurance. Without proper context we don’t even know if he is advocating, stating his presidential goals, or merely discussing possibilities.
No you certainly haven’t and it’s been explained why. She makes no such claim. She says he did not hold a different position as Senator {meaning US Senator}
In 2003 when he was a state Senator not US Senator. That leaves several years for him to gather information and fine tune his position.
I’d acknowledge that he may still believe Single payer is the way to go and being politically minded he understands that advocating that all at once is a bad idea. He’s stated just what Douglas repeats. “Single payer if we’re starting from scratch but we’re not so we’re not advocating single payer now.” That fits the time frame of the video. He did advocate single payer. Currently he is not.
That’s not the question. The title of the video is
private insurance , not employer coverage. One is not the other, and taken out of context him speaking of possibly eliminating employer based coverage does not mean he wants to eliminate private insurance.
