Saturday, August 08, 2009

How To Counter Arguments on HealthCare Reform

Any talk of controlling the deficit or fixing the economy without addressing the current healthcare crisis is futile. Our critics are arguing to keep a broken system, which is not just unsustainable, but is becoming catastrophic. Our costs are practically guaranteed to double over the next decade, which will lead to bankrupt employers and state governments.

This means millions more Americans will go uninsured—which is why premiums go up each year. You are covering the cost of those who can't afford to go to the doctor and end up having to go to the emergency room instead.

Those lucky enough to have insurance will be more vulnerable than ever to arbitrary denials of coverage.

Even right now, no one can argue that the care and cost are uneven, and while we spend more than any other nation on earth on healthcare, we are the only industrialized nation not to provide at least a minimum standard to all our citizens. With all the amount of money we are spending, we rank only 37th in the world for level of care, behind nations such as Cyprus or Columbia.

Bottom line is that we need to fix the problem. We needed to do this decades ago, but we can’t push this off anymore.

As expected, people with agendas to who just want our president to fail, or who profit from this broken system, are feeding outrageous talking points to the wingnut masses to carry out who are either too stupid or too lazy to realize that “Victory” for them means catastrophe for everyone. It's pointless to argue with the wingnut's, but several people who get bombarded with these falsehoods should get them corrected.

Morons, like those who attended the Tampa event in Florida, would not stop screaming that the reform will lead to healthcare for illegals or euthanasia of seniors (our own Ginny-Brown Waite, folks, said that. Don’t blame her, she was paid quite a bit too—see previous post). Even Palin today said they would kill her son. Idiots.

For these rantings, kindly direct them to this website, which puts the kibosh on the stupidity.

However, this category of people is called screaming stupid. These are people who make no attempt to read what the draft actually says unless, as Balam says, it fits their preconceived notions on Obama, the DNP, or evil “librals”.

They will always ignore the explanations given to them not only by professionals trained in interpreting legislation, but also by the people who actually wrote the legislation at issue, preferring instead to buy the interpretation of hyper-partisan nonprofessionals like Sarah, Rush, or glenn. Don’t waste your time.

For those who aren’t screaming stupid, they will argue point by point what is contained in the all-powerful HR 3200. One intelligent dissenter in the previous post contends to have “studied it carefully”--I'll take him at his word that he read all 1,018 pages. Normally, however, they will argue points given to them by their right-wing masters, such as this beauty that has circulated on the internet by the Liberty Counsel. (PAGE 2, Paragraph 3, Stroke 5, says we are all gonna die!!!)

Couple of things,

First, read the bill yourself: here

Second, the bill is a draft. No where near completion.

Third, according to Jennifer Tolbert, an independent health care analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan foundation that studies health care reform, the claims are “flat-out, blatant lies. It's unbelievable to me how they can claim to reference the legislation and then make claims that are blatantly false."

If you get this email or one like it, guide the good fellow to someone who has actually read the bill and talked with the bill’s authors. These folks went through each claim made by the liberty counsel point by point:

Linda Bergthold

The president also does a good job of addressing the lunacy and the motivations behind them:

People who care about the truth will appreciate it.

Those who still disagree and want a rationale debate, please, by all means, give it to them.

But those who are angry with you and scream that this is the first step of forced abortions under a liberal Hitler, then you need to deal with them at their level. Have them play with THIS for awhile.


  1. Christian Science Monitor, 10/21/08 (Lexis):

    Margaret Demko of Albany, Ohio, agrees everyone should be responsible for themselves. But she also believes the free market has failed the healthcare system miserably. That's left too many people, like her family and every other family that lives on her rural road in Appalachia, without healthcare coverage.

    . . .

    Ensuring that everyone has access to care has become a full-time cause for Ms. Demko. She and her family have been without insurance since her daughter was born four years ago with what doctors say is Down syndrome. Her husband is a self-employed contractor so the family had relied on her job as a substance abuse counselor for their health insurance.

    But Demko said she couldn't keep working full time with an infant with special needs. When she quit, she didn't realize that would result in her family's being unable to get health insurance.

    Ohio does not require insurance companies to cover children with disabilities considered to be preexisting conditions.

    HEAR that Sarah Palin?? Who's killing your kids?

  2. Fox News, and Glenn Beck, are working to prevent health care solutions that could improve your health care and even your health. Is the current status quo OK ? If not, why wouldn't the government do better than the health care companies ? The government runs Medicare, and it isn't perfect but administrative overhead is only about 2%, dramatically lower than for private companies. And the federal government runs the military. Is that 'socialism' ? - it isn't perfect but private military contractors are worse. Look at Blackwater

  3. So here is my question about this. What agenda do you believe that I have? I am against HR 3200 but would not be opposed to a different solution to the health care problem. I do not work in the medical field (although I do have several friends who do, all of which oppose the idea of it being run by the government) and I make no money from insurance companies and I'm sure I've paid more in to insurance than I have ever received in benefits.

    I will argue however, that PART of the reason health care is so expensive is because the government mandates that hospitals treat people even if they are unable to pay. While that may sound inhumane, I suggest that the government actually not force hospitals to treat those without insurance or who can't pay.

    Alternatively, State-level governments could always create their own set of health care facilities throughout their state and offer care to the uninsured at very cheap or even free rates and put the burden on the local taxpayer. That is of course something that would need to be voted on in a particular state. The state could hire their own doctors and pay them what they think they are worth, like any employer. But for the Federal Government to take over an entire industry like this is completely uncalled for. There ARE other solutions than having 'big brother' take over an industry.

    Some of you may even oppose what I have just suggested above, although I don't see how it's any worse of a solution than taking over the health care industry. The point is, there are other solutions that can fix this problem and considering how great our Federal Government is at wasting money, it doesn't seem like a bad idea to not let them have this one, but instead just allow it to be a local-level decision.

    Unfortunately for the moment, I live in Orlando, Florida. I would like to move to New Hampshire soon though, as they have a fairly good model for what a 'free' society should be. Thanks to the efforts of the free state project, the government is shrinking there and they live in a safe and mostly harmonious community. Why have big brother impose health care reforms on a state that doesn't feel like they need it? If a minority of the people living there want it but most people don't, then they don't do it and if the minority that want it don't like it, they can of course move to another state that DOES have it. It's as simple as that, really.

    Anyway, I realize this was kind of a long-winded explanation of how I think our government should work in general, with the federal government not dictating social policy for the rest of the country.
    I hope you can at least respect my opinion on this matter as I respect yours even though I disagree with it. It may be easy to let the government take control of health care and think about how great it is for the uninsured people in the country. It is a lot more difficult to say 'no' to someone in need. The problem with people in general, as soon as you say yes, they start making more demands. If you put it on THEM to solve their own problems, then they begin to learn to take care of themselves.

    People can achieve in life, but with the government taking from the rich and giving to the poor, there is no incentive for them to try.

  4. I don't think it mandates you have insurance, but I can understand that for the same reason states mandate that you have car insurance if you drive. Here in Florida, we allow people to ride motorcycles without helmets...that's cool but you better believe they will sue for bodily injury if they get hurt.

    I am fine with you not having insurance, but if you choose not too...then pay for your own medical bills entirely if you get hurt. That should be the provision--and how's that for personal responsibility.

  5. I agree completely about personal responsibility. I'm pretty sure hr 3200 DOES mandate all Americans are insured. Driving is different, it's a privilege. I'm actually out right now and on my phone. I will investigate further when I get home later.

  6. austin, there is no reason for the amount of money we spend on healthcare for not everyone to have at least a minimum standard of care.

    We spend over a trillion, more than ANY OTHER NATION, but we are the only one that has 43 million uninsured and growing. That is costing you, me and everyone.

    PS--this post was not meant to disrepect you. In fact, I believe I called you intelligent.

  7. bottom line...we DON'T HAVE ANY CHOICE RIGHT NOW.

    Mr. John Q. Citizen...

    Does he pick his employer's policy? NO.

    Is there a network he has to use? YES

    Will he keep his coverage if he loses his job? NO.

    Does the insurance company get to decide what is paid for and what is not paid for? YES.

    If he has a pre-existing condition, will he be able to get insurance? NO.

  8. I'm still out so I can't read 3200, but I'm suggesting the government not spend ANY money on healthcare and leave it to the states. I agree with the amount of money we spend it's ridiculous, but the problem is we are going to be adding potentially 2 to 3 trillion MORE. Sick of the fed wasting our money.

  9. that's just wrong Austin. The cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of action.

  10. Maybe you should give more of a rational argument with evidence instead of dismissing your opponents as "morons" and calling them "idiots."