10 Things Liberals Hate…About the Health Care Bill

I have a hard time admitting it myself, but I’m pretty sure that I’m not alone. I have liberal friends. As difficult as this may seem sometimes, it does off me a unique opportunity. I have observed over the last few weeks those arguments against the current incarnation of “universal health care (nay! insurance)” which have been most effective in convincing them to a more reasonable point of view. This is important as public sentiment right now is tilting heavily against the House and Senate bills. Most conservatives and a clear majority of independents already oppose the bill. Time to get your liberal friends on board or off the fence. As I have been trained in formal debate, I offer ten points to discuss. These are not typically “things everyboy hates” about the bills, it’s special and for our lefty pals.

1. The “Exchange” and anti-trust language enshrines “big insurance” execs as semi-permanent public employees. Here’s how it works: Section 102 of HR3200 phases out private plans that don’t meet the conditions of the “Exchange” which will be how everybody will have to buy private coverage. Specific language in the bills prevents companies that participate in this Exchange from being sued for anti-trust violations. Current “evil” insurance companies become part of a corporatist bureacracy.

2. Neither the House nor Senate bills is “universal coverage.” We don’t have to spend a lot of time reminding liberals how many campaign promises President Obama has broken because many of them are counting, too. Needless to say, the President now fully admits that the bills before congress will not cover all Americans. I knew liberals were mad about this the day Obama announced that his “deadline” really wasn’t set in stone.

3. Both bills maintain three-party payment systems. This is simple enough. Either Obama is clearly lying and the bills are meant to end private health insurance or they’re going to maintain the “profit-sick” system that liberals despise. If health care is a “right,” why would the federal government allow profit in the insurance industry?

4. Passing current versions of the bill would kill HR676. Aside from the obvious point that the bureaucracy in the current plans would make a universal, single-payer system like what is in HR676 impossible, there is also the more subtle argument that passage of something like HR3200 effectively ends reform efforts in the forseeable future. I respect Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D) for his sincerity even though I rarely agree with him. Mr. Kucinich is not a fan of HR3200.

5. Civil rights watchdogs call the bill racist. The US Commission on Civil Rights is preparing an official position on the bills that calls into question specific provisions that would target medical school grants by race and ethnicity. It has been my position that providing funding to low-income women for elective abortions feeds the “black genocide” phenomenon; odd observations on proposals supported by our first “post-racial” President and his supporters. If your liberal buddies tell you that the Hyde Amendment would prevent this, just remind them that not even Senator Chris Dodd (D) will float that duck.

6. The bills violate the “right to privacy” in several ways. Chuck Norris read the bill blindfolded and found that government officials can come to your house and “help” you in your parenting. There are also a myriad of provisions, some vague and others specific, that would allow the government access to everything from your bank accounts to eating habits. Even the ACLU mocks the President on this issue. Pizza?

7. The bills will violate public trust in existing entitlement programs. The left-leaning, mostly Democrat-appointed CBO has repeatedly rebuked the White House for claiming there are “cost savings” in the bills for Medicare and Medicaid. The President seems intentionally vague on the subject when pressed. As the bills mandate cuts in spending for the two giant health programs, the cuts will have to come from somewhere. I’m guessing the cuts will be to service.

8. The bills’ vague language violates the principle of transparency. My second post on this blog was to expose a flaw in the language of HR3200. Specifically, the bill remains vague by modifying other legislation, like the social security act. Aside from that, the entirety of both the House and Senate versions are filled with so much that is left to interpretation. If your liberal friends enjoy calling you a “deather,” remind them that such theories are possible because the bill is poorly written. You might also remind them that the Senate removed language which Sarah Palin said created “death panels” but only after the President essentially called her a liar.

9. The bills were written with heavy corporate lobbying. When elements in the media became aware that insurance lobbyists were making visits to the White House, they requested visitor logs and received them, incomplete and weeks late. Now there’s word that the White House has struck some sort of unsavory deal with pharmaceutical companies. Liberals hate corporate lobbies with a capital H. This is also another fantastic example of campaign promises broken.

10. The bills contain no tort reform. This is the most obvious and popular way to reform the way health insurance works in the US. Nobody answers wrong when you ask why it’s missing. Remind your liberal friends that the Socialist Health Care Paradise of Canada actually has pretty good tort laws. Liberal patriots don’t like greedy lawyer lobbies any more than you do. If your friends on the left don’t get this point, you’ve met a real ideologue.

Go forth and spread the word. Convert the shabby liberal masses with love and light. Links are provided below, organized by point for easy reference. I have favored sources with the most left-lean first, and so on, with the exception of Chuck Norris who is never less than 100% RIGHT unless he says otherwise:

1
http://factcheck.org/2009/08/private-insurance-not-outlawed/

http://osmoothie.com/2009/08/12/the-health-care-bill-what-hr-3200-says/

http://www.reason.com/news/show/133439.html

2
http://www.healthcare-now.org/obama-admits-us-can%E2%80%99t-insure-all-americans-without-single-payer-video/

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD99KN46G0

4
http://www.hr676.org/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/13/141151/246

5
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/11/panel-sees-race-bias-in-health-care-bill/

http://blackgenocide.org/abortion.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/51216

6
http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2009/08/11/dirty_secret_no_1_in_obamacare

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

7
http://www.poligazette.com/2009/07/27/cbo-obamas-plan-to-pay-for-obamacare-useless/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703822.html

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/08/10/gvse0811.htm

http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/brace-yourselves-likely-medicaid-cuts/2009-08-13

8
https://rdickerhoof.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/breaking-major-problem-with-health-care-bill/

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman/2009/08/incomprehensible-health-care-reform.html#more

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/senate-committee-drops-end-of-life-provision-2009-08-13

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/11/AR2009081102935.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hjMwTwWBqc01lHqvzXAuvNJEA_oQ

9
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/460296/the_cheney_like_secrecy_of_the_obama_white_house

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_13046477

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/mar/17/obamas-lobbyist-rules-promise-broken/

10
http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/08-10-2009/0005075208&EDATE=

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090806/GJOPINION_01/708069762/-1/FOSOPINION

http://www.tampabay.com/news/article1021977.ece

Advertisements

14 Responses to 10 Things Liberals Hate…About the Health Care Bill

  1. Badtux says:

    LOL! Funny how you put words in liberals mouths, it’s like you’ve stuck your hands up a straw man’s rear and started twitching its mouth.

    So, as an actual liberal by default (meaning, I’m halfway sane, unlike the batshit crazy nutballs ranting about “outlaws private insurance” and “would kill Stephen Hawking”), let’s go one by one:

    1. The anti-lawsuit language in the bill only applies to the public option, so this is a man of straw. I have no problem with regulated oligopolies with a mandated medical claims ratio so they aren’t allowed to profit excessively from the illnesses of others, which is what the bill basically sets up. I might prefer single-payer but if this bill passes it I won’t wake up at night screaming. Private insurance only accounts for 35% of healthcare spending after all.

    2. Not universal coverage: Yes, that is indeed a valid complaint liberals have with the bill. If we had single-payer with , anybody with a social security card could get healthcare anytime anywhere without signing up for anything at all, and insurance premium payment would be automatic via payroll deduction. Not only would it be cheaper, but it’d be far cheaper than dozens of health insurance companies each of which have their own billing and advertising and etc.

    3. No, most liberals have no problem with the notion of the payer / patient / payee distinction. Even HR676 maintains that distinction, though it makes the payer the government.

    4. HR676 is beloved of many, but personally, upon reading it, I’m more “meh”. I’d much prefer Medicare For All as our single-payer solution, because it would provide a much wider variety of choice, e.g. between an HMO model and a pay-for-service model.

    5. LOL! No, liberals don’t consider the bill racist for giving more scholarships to historically-black medical schools. It’s you right-wingers who are always whining about how any assistance to people who were second-class citizens until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed is “racism”.

    6. Chuck Norris has taken a few too many hard blows to the head. Sorry. Has he never heard of CPS? Liberals don’t have any privacy problems with the bill.

    7. The Medicare cuts are aimed at the Medicare Advantage and Part D programs, which was passed by Republicans and deliberately set up to drain the trust fund faster than the traditional program by having higher payouts to Bush cronies. They’ve been fully specified by committees. Medicare Advantage will be reformed by having the exact same reimbursement rates as Part A+B, i.e., put back on the same funding level as the rest of Medicare, and Part D will be reformed by negotiating drug prices and thereby getting better pricing on drugs. Personally I doubt there will be significant cost savings here, but I don’t have reduced confidence in Medicare because of this.

    8. This is completely straw man. The bill’s language is clear and unambiguous legal language with only one legal meaning. The fact that some lines can be taken out of context and misread in English to say something that the clear Legal doesn’t say just goes to show that some people are either stupid or dishonest.

    9. Unsavory, but a fact of modern politics, and most liberals don’t like it but are resigned to it. I read the bill as a massive government subsidy for the insurance industry, which is why I was absolutely baffled by the industry-whipped-up fervor against the bill until I realized that arbitrary denials and rescissions were their business model and thus outlawing them basically outlawed their entire business model. Subsidizing an industry which has betrayed the public trust by not providing the medical care we’ve paid them to provide rankles me. Still, I would not be heartbroken if the bill were passed in its current state.

    10. Tort reform is a non-starter. Tort payouts comprised 0.4% of health care spending in 2004 and tort premiums comprised 0.6% of health care spending in 2004. The CBO took the U.S. Census Health Inventory data and found that there was 1.4% difference in total healthcare spending between states with strict tort limits and those with no tort limits. Might as well regulate purchases of stethoscopes, you’d save about as much. Removing a right guaranteed by the Constitution (the right to sue in a court of law if you’ve been wronged by someone) in order to save a maximum of 1.4% of healthcare spending is a non-starter for myself and most liberals.

    In short, your “liberal” seems a lot like a man of straw with a conservative man moving his lips, and actual liberals, while not enamored of HR3200 (we’d much prefer single-payer or Medicare For All) are nowhere near as pessimistic about it as you are. Yes, it’s not the be-all and end-all of health reform and will require a follow-on bill to handle the costs problem, and is nowhere near as efficient as single-payer would be. Under normal circumstances, I’d sigh and accept HR3200 as “well, probably the best we can do in a bipartisan world” and say go for it. At the moment, however, given that the GOP has decided to dump bipartisanship and go for mob rule and obstructionism, I’m just wondering why our Democratic congress doesn’t just say “f*** it” and pass HR676 and give the middle finger to the rowdy Republican minority. But then, penguins have stones, albeit internally due to the frigid temperatures of the Antarctic. (Is that too much information? :-).

    – Badtux the Healthcare Penguin

  2. Badtux says:

    LOL! Funny how you put words in liberals mouths, it’s like you’ve stuck your hands up a straw man’s rear and started twitching its mouth.

    So, as an actual liberal by default (meaning, I’m halfway sane, unlike the batshit crazy nutballs ranting about “outlaws private insurance” and “would kill Stephen Hawking”), let’s go one by one:

    1. The anti-lawsuit language in the bill only applies to the public option, so this is a man of straw. I have no problem with regulated oligopolies with a mandated medical claims ratio so they aren’t allowed to profit excessively from the illnesses of others, which is what the bill basically sets up. I might prefer single-payer but if this bill passes it I won’t wake up at night screaming. Private insurance only accounts for 35% of healthcare spending after all.

    2. Not universal coverage: Yes, that is indeed a valid complaint liberals have with the bill. If we had single-payer with , anybody with a social security card could get healthcare anytime anywhere without signing up for anything at all, and insurance premium payment would be automatic via payroll deduction. Not only would it be cheaper, but it’d be far cheaper than dozens of health insurance companies each of which have their own billing and advertising and etc.

    3. No, most liberals have no problem with the notion of the payer / patient / payee distinction. Even HR676 maintains that distinction, though it makes the payer the government.

    4. HR676 is beloved of many, but personally, upon reading it, I’m more “meh”. I’d much prefer Medicare For All as our single-payer solution, because it would provide a much wider variety of choice, e.g. between an HMO model and a pay-for-service model.

    5. LOL! No, liberals don’t consider the bill racist for giving more scholarships to historically-black medical schools. It’s you right-wingers who are always whining about how any assistance to people who were second-class citizens until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed is “racism”.

    6. Chuck Norris has taken a few too many hard blows to the head. Sorry. Has he never heard of CPS? Liberals don’t have any privacy problems with the bill.

    7. The Medicare cuts are aimed at the Medicare Advantage and Part D programs, which was passed by Republicans and deliberately set up to drain the trust fund faster than the traditional program by having higher payouts to Bush cronies. They’ve been fully specified by committees. Medicare Advantage will be reformed by having the exact same reimbursement rates as Part A+B, i.e., put back on the same funding level as the rest of Medicare, and Part D will be reformed by negotiating drug prices and thereby getting better pricing on drugs. Personally I doubt there will be significant cost savings here, but I don’t have reduced confidence in Medicare because of this.

    8. This is completely straw man. The bill’s language is clear and unambiguous legal language with only one legal meaning. The fact that some lines can be taken out of context and misread in English to say something that the clear Legal doesn’t say just goes to show that some people are either stupid or dishonest.

    9. Unsavory, but a fact of modern politics, and most liberals don’t like it but are resigned to it. I read the bill as a massive government subsidy for the insurance industry, which is why I was absolutely baffled by the industry-whipped-up fervor against the bill until I realized that arbitrary denials and rescissions were their business model and thus outlawing them basically outlawed their entire business model. Subsidizing an industry which has betrayed the public trust by not providing the medical care we’ve paid them to provide rankles me. Still, I would not be heartbroken if the bill were passed in its current state.

    10. Tort reform is a non-starter. Tort payouts comprised 0.4% of health care spending in 2004 and tort premiums comprised 0.6% of health care spending in 2004. The CBO took the U.S. Census Health Inventory data and found that there was 1.4% difference in total healthcare spending between states with strict tort limits and those with no tort limits. Might as well regulate purchases of stethoscopes, you’d save about as much. Removing a right guaranteed by the Constitution (the right to sue in a court of law if you’ve been wronged by someone) in order to save a maximum of 1.4% of healthcare spending is a non-starter for myself and most liberals.

    In short, your “liberal” seems a lot like a man of straw with a conservative man moving his lips, and actual liberals, while not enamored of HR3200 (we’d much prefer single-payer or Medicare For All) are nowhere near as pessimistic about it as you are. Yes, it’s not the be-all and end-all of health reform and will require a follow-on bill to handle the costs problem, and is nowhere near as efficient as single-payer would be. Under normal circumstances, I’d sigh and accept HR3200 as “well, probably the best we can do in a bipartisan world” and say go for it. At the moment, however, given that the GOP has decided to dump bipartisanship and go for mob rule and obstructionism, I’m just wondering why our Democratic congress doesn’t just say “f*** it” and pass HR676 and give the middle finger to the rowdy Republican minority. But then, penguins have stones, albeit internally due to the frigid temperatures of the Antarctic. (Is that too much information? :-).

    – Badtux the Healthcare Penguin
    Sorry, forgot to add great post! Can’t wait to see your next post!

  3. suddencall says:

    The Democrats need to forget about by-partisan,after all if I rememver right when the republicans had the majority they told the democrats to set down and shut up.Am I wrong? The democrats need to pass the single payer and instead of medicare they need to put everyone in The USA ( citizen ) in the veterans health care plan.That is a proven plan and they could have voted on that the first week.The Democrats need to get out of the by-partisan business and into the homeland security business and pick up these teabaggers and ship them off to Getmo.

  4. Della Creighton says:

    Have you ever Been treated at a VA hospital. This will set up an no alternatine to treatment. will give DRs advantage of your healthcare and if you do not like what they say they won’t treat you at all. You people are deluded about the VA
    DAV

  5. bayouchild says:

    I’m voting Dickerhoof next election!

  6. Badtux says:

    Della, my dad was a Vet and died in a VA hospital as a result of multiple heart attacks, strokes, seizures, and finally pneumonia. My mom is a nurse who has nursed in both private and public hospitals. She says he got the best treatment she has ever seen, the same as he would have gotten in any hospital she ever nursed at, including ICU time long after it was any use until we could make up our minds as a family to withdraw him from the ventilator and let him die peacefully.

    I am happy with the treatment my father received at the VA. I have no idea what kind of bad experiences you’ve had with the VA, but they do not match my experiences with the VA, the doctors gave us every chance to decide on my father’s treatment and then the choice of deciding when he would die after treatment became futile.

  7. Jordan says:

    The ACLU pizza video you linked to as an example of the ACLU’s apparent opposition of the health care plan is entire disingenuous. That video was posted quite awhile ago (2006 is the farthest back I can find it) in opposition to the Bush administration invading personal privacy. The true link to post is this: http://www.aclu.org/pizza/.

    Please quit misleading people about the health care plan. Thank you.

    • rdickerhoof says:

      Your assumption is that I knew that? I hope in the future you take the time to ask before blaming. Question everything. Everything.

      • Jordan says:

        I assumed you did your due diligence to provide the most accurate information you can–until I saw that video. Perhaps you should take some of your own advice before posting such things. Otherwise, you risk the possibility of being viewed as just another conservative ideologue spewing half truths.

  8. rdickerhoof says:

    How very constructive of you.

  9. […] 10 Things Liberals Hate…About the Health Care Bill « A Conservative's Opinion and Solutions rdickerhoof.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/10-things-liberals-hate-about-the-health-care-bill – view page – cached #RSS 2.0 A Conservative's Opinion and Solutions » 10 Things Liberals Hate…About the Health Care Bill Comments Feed A Conservative's Opinion and Solutions A Twitter Inpired Health Care Reform Draft My Patriots’ Prayer Betty’s Lunch — From the page […]

  10. fence says:

    fence…

    […]10 Things Liberals Hate…About the Health Care Bill « A Conservative's Opinion and Solutions[…]…

  11. Reece says:

    magnificent issues altogether, yoou just gained a new reader.
    What could you recmmend about your powt thaat you made a few days ago?
    Any sure?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: