Remember Representative Sheila Jackson Lee’s game-time in Houston on ObamaCare? No? Perhaps you never even heard about it? Or I’m being unclear? Maybe you heard about the woman who isn’t a doctor but plays one at town-hall meetings? No? It went viral and made mainstream news after Patterico scooped it (do a bit of link-surfing after you link-surf from the above link). Sheila Jackson Lee, who couldn’t put four words together without pantsing herself, had a fake doctor in the crowd give a fake story and blah blah yada yada yada during a town-hall meeting.
Not only was Roxana Mayer a fake doctor (she was a grad student at the Univ of Houston), she was also an Obama delegate. Imagine that. She lied about being a doctor and hid the fact she was an insider to make it seem like she was, well, something she was clearly not. All to push ObamaCare.
Let me ask you a question. If your goal is pure, why do you have to use down-and-out lies to achieve your goal? Do you honestly believe “the ends justifies the means”? And, if so, is your goal really all that pure? Or do you already know that too many people will kill your goal if you act in an honorable fashion? If “the truth shall set you free,” why are you afraid of the truth?
Okay, that was more than one question. Sue me.
Why did Roxana Mayer lie? Because she thought her lieing would bring her street cred. Yup. From Patterico’s link above:
UPDATE x4: Further confirmation (as if it were needed!) from the Lone Star Times:
Our own David Jennings secured a phone interview, in which Mayer admitted to impersonating a physician, saying — get this — she thought it would help her credibility. (It didn’t.)
Weird; her hero Barack Obama also thinks that lying enhances his credibility . . .
You really should read their entire post. The idea that this was all Mayer’s idea seems rather outlandish once you’ve taken it all in.
This is just one of many lies told to get ObamaCare passed. Did you hear the one about how the CBO declared it would reduce the deficit? Since CBO only looks at a ten-year static model and ObamaCare starts taxing in 2010 and doesn’t start paying until 2013 (after the Presidential Election cycle), it has ten years of taxes and only seven years of payout. Let me say that again, in a different way. 100 percent of the time studied, it collects taxes but only 70 percent of the time studied, it pays out. So, the small “savings” it achieves is wholly due to the 30 percent of the time it doesn’t pay out. It does not show even close to being deficit-neutral without the first three “free” years where taxes are collected and payout never happens.
Of course, after the 10 years the CBO looks at, all years are being payed out, and at an enormous debt-enhancing cost. And, by the by, when was the last time CBO came even close to the actual cost of a government job?
On a fiscal analysis alone, ObamaCare is “death to us all.” Obama and the Dems have lied about that and continue to lie about it. Fake doctors at town-hall meetings (where Obama said the nation is all “wee-weed-up” and Gibbs very clearly admitted that meant along the lines of “wetting the bed”) were lies abut ObamaCare in an effort to push it. The photo-op of white-coated doctors was a lie.
How many lies must there be before people realize the entire ObamaCare bovine byproduct is a sack of lies? Well, in truth, a very large number of people have decided just so. Look at Rasmussen’s polling data. But a very large number of people are either ignoring the lies or haven’t found out they were lies or are drinking the Obama/Pelosi/Reid kool-aid.
There is an answer to every ailment, and never is that answer “more government intrusion.”
_______________________________
Cross Posted on Truth Before Dishonor
You catch one extremist lying for political gain (btw, pot… kettle…) and the whole health insurance reform is exposed as evil? A politician promises budget neutral, and because many government programs run over, then the whole thing is worthless? You’ve assumed that one year of tax is exactly equal to one year of payout?
I will be happy to pay a slightly elevated tax with some of the money I have left over from not being screwed by my insurance company. Hundreds of thousands of people will be happy to pay some extra tax for the benefit of still being alive, because they have health insurance. Hundreds of thousands of people will be happy to pay a little extra tax because they’re not bankrupt over medical bills.
You have no leg to stand on, here, so you toss out inconsequential anecdotes about an individual and project her lie across all Democrats and their programs.
Hell, even if the program is a big expense, it will still be cheaper than a war. So, lets just not invade Iran, and just make movies about lots of strangers being killed in far off lands. Same entertainment, same flag waving, millions fewer deaths.
I had the story about Jackson-Lee on my blog when it happened.
Nan, I don’t want to pay “even a little bit extra” for your health care. In fact, I don’t want you paying for my health care, either. Moreover, the bills being discussed aren’t just “a little bit” more money. They are a lot more money for everyone, including people having to pay taxes on things they’ve never had to pay it on before. But I guess people like you think that’s ok, because then when you have long waits for care, you won’t be shelling out 20 bucks for the visit.
So, you support the present system and don’t think there’s any waiting now? You rail about government death panels, but don’t mind private death panels? Well… I say panels, but it’s really just low-level claims adjusters, and there’s really no decisions involved. If they find a typo or an inconsistency or a pre-existing condition like acne or having been beaten, then you’re shut off. Despite years of premiums paid on time. No matter the severity of your need. You think this is right?
You support the fact that there is profit in letting us die? You so distrust a government that you’d rather be murdered by fantastically rich corporations so they can be slightly richer?
To the poster: I largely agree with Sharon and would go somewhat beyond. I support letting you destroy yourself, rather than become a slave to your insistent dysfunction. Where’s the good in that?
Hitchcock noted:
This behavior is what is called “salesmanship” according to at least one left-leaning contributor to your site.
The overall approach works this way:
According to the left, when you make a point, you must not only provide citations that can be checked and criticized in order to prove your credibility and the soundness of your argument; but, you must provide them repeatedly, until such time, if ever, as Perry … I mean the left-leaning contributor, deigns to acknowledge your citation.
However, deliberate fraud on the part of a left-wing polemicist, supposedly tells us nothing about the intrinsic merit of their arguments, or their motivations in recourse to such deceptive methods.
Hope this clears things up.
If they find a typo or an inconsistency or a pre-existing condition like acne or having been beaten, then you’re shut off. Despite years of premiums paid on time. No matter the severity of your need. You think this is right?
You can still receive treatment. You can even protest the denial. There’s nothing preventing you from receiving care if you choose to pay for it. The difference is that you want me to pay for it. Whereas I’m willing to pay for my care, including insurance (or not, as the case may be).
Sharon equivocates again:“There’s nothing preventing you from receiving care if you choose to pay for it.”
Do you understand, Sharon, the meaning of the word “insurance”? When you think you have it, then suddenly find out you don’t, then you were not insured, in spite of all the premiums you paid.
I note that the Repubs have now, finally, come forward with a health reform bill, let’s call it ‘Boehnercare’, and compare it to ‘Obamacare’ the House Bill that may well come to the floor for a vote tomorrow.
Here is the executive summary for Boehnercare:: “Republicans are learning an unpleasant lesson this morning: The only thing worse than having no health-care reform plan is releasing a bad one, getting thrashed by CBO and making the House Democrats look good in comparison.”
Sounds encouraging, doesn’t it?
Here is the comparison, based on the CBO evaluations:
Boehnercare: In ten years, the current 17 % of legal, non-elderly folks who are uninsured will remain the same, and covers 3 million more people.
Obamacare: In ten years, cuts the 17% down to 4%, and covers 36 million more people.
Boehnercare: In ten years, costs will be lowered by $68 billion per year.
Obamacare: In ten years, costs will be lowered by $104 billion per year.
Boehnercare: Does not cover preexisting conditions.
Obamacare: Covers preexisting conditions.
So there you have it, Obamacare covers 12 times more people and saves $36 billion more than Boehnercare, and covers preexisting conditions.
The House Dems have done their homework!
Now agreed, this is an oversimplification of both plans, picking out critical highlights, but Sharon, on this basis, which plan do you like better?
Do you understand, Sharon, the meaning of the word “insurance”? When you think you have it, then suddenly find out you don’t, then you were not insured, in spite of all the premiums you paid.
You’re covered for lots of things under an insurance plan. But even if whatever you’ve got isn’t covered that doesn’t mean you can’t get care.
As for your “analysis” of the Republican plan, you left out several important things.
The Republican plan won’t raise your taxes.
The Republican plan doesn’t tell you what your insurance can and can’t cover.
The Republican plan costs about 1/6th of the Democrat plan.
The Republican plan will lower your premiums.
The Democrat plan doesn’t cover everyone it purports to cover, it fines people for not getting insurance, it taxes the hell out of everybody for a variety of things they now don’t have to pay taxes on, it will cause nearly half of all doctors to either quit or consider quitting, it will not bring down the costs of healthcare and has a $1.05 trillion price tag.
Which plan do I like better? The one that allows individuals to take care of themselves and doesn’t crush them with taxes on everything from their insurance to medical supplies.
First of all, Sharon, you give no citation for your alleged facts. Secondly, I think you are wrong on several items:
The Republican plan won’t raise your taxes. The Dem plan will tax employer contributions to health insurance, a bummer! But the Repub plan still does not cover 17% of the population, just as now. Single payer would have been better!
The Republican plan doesn’t tell you what your insurance can and can’t cover. If you like your current plan, you don’t have to change.
The Republican plan costs about 1/6th of the Democrat plan. Absolutely false, according to the CBO, as I mentioned above.
The Republican plan will lower your premiums. I don’t believe this claim.
The Democrat plan doesn’t cover everyone it purports to cover. Like what? Meaningless statement!
It taxes the hell out of everybody for a variety of things they now don’t have to pay taxes on. Without details; sounds hyperbolic, as usual!
It will cause nearly half of all doctors to either quit or consider quitting> The AMA and AARP support it!
It will not bring down the costs of healthcare and has a $1.05 trillion price tag. Again, absolutely false, according to the CBO.
Sharon, why do you make these things up? Or, why didn’t you give us a citation for all these allegations?
Here is Cassandra’s list of ‘Boehnercare’ shortcomings compared to ‘Obamacare’:
* No national exchange
* No mandates for employers or for individuals
* Insurance companies still get to exclude people with pre-existing conditions
* No tax credits to help middle class and lower income people to buy insurance
* High-risk pools for states to cover people excluded from insurance coverage are included and some funds are provided. Except lots of states have these and they are expensive.
* Small businesses band together to get lower rates (don’t get me started)
* Limit medical malpractice (but nothing about limiting the damage that medical mistakes can cause to people!)
* Let people buy insurance across state lines — specifically knocking down state laws for consumer protection.
I think the Republican plan falls far short of what we need, gives less bang for the buck, and costs more bucks over a 10 year period than the current Dem House Bill.
PS: Boehner ought to be thankful that he is on the Government plan for life, because he is going to need it soon, since he “smokes like a chimney”. He already looks unhealthy, his coloring is not right, so he wears makeup for his official photo portrait!
Perry, why don’t you use a source beside the leftwing hacks at Delaware Liberal for a change.
CBO: Republican health plan would reduce premiums, cut deficit
The Dem plan will tax employer contributions to health insurance, a bummer! But the Repub plan still does not cover 17% of the population, just as now. Single payer would have been better!
Perry, expanding the risk pools and decreasing the costs of insurance makes it more affordable for the people who want to buy insurance to get it. Similarly, it doesn’t force people who don’t want to buy insurance to get it. And it doesn’t force the rest of us to be taxed to death to pay for Obamacare.
The Republican plan costs about 1/6th of the Democrat plan. Absolutely false, according to the CBO, as I mentioned above.
You’re right. It’s not 1/6th the cost of the Democrats’ plan. It’s 6% My bad. And the House bill scored $1.05 trillion in costs, which includes ridiculous regulations such as regulating snack machines at an estimated cost of $56 million the first year, taxing your health insurance and taxing medical devices.
The Democrat plan doesn’t cover everyone it purports to cover. Like what? Meaningless statement!
We were told Democrats were going to cover everyone who is uninsured, which, according to Democrats, is about 45 million people. But Pelosi’s plan doesn’t do that. Worse, it doesn’t cover everyone at a cost this country can’t afford.
It will cause nearly half of all doctors to either quit or consider quitting> The AMA and AARP support it!
So what if the AMA and AARP support it? If half the doctors quit, it really doesn’t matter if these organizations endorse the plan.
I’ve covered all these points at my blog, Perry. From now on, when you start complaining about citations, I’ve got one answer for you: read my damn blog.
I think the Republican plan falls far short of what we need, gives less bang for the buck, and costs more bucks over a 10 year period than the current Dem House Bill.
In what universe does $68 billion equal more than $1.05 trillion?
That should read: “In what universe does $61 billion equal more than $1.05 trillion?”
Sharon:“In what universe does $61 billion equal more than $1.05 trillion?”
Right here, Sharon!
$68 billion is the savings per year, compared to having no health care reform. On the other hand, $1.06 trillion is the cost over a ten year period, for which Obama has committed to it being revenue neutral. We’ll have to see if that happens!
“Perry, why don’t you use a source beside the leftwing hacks at Delaware Liberal for a change.”
I did, at 9:27 pm in this thread. Please go read it!
That said, what is wrong with Cassandra’s list? I find it more authentic than yours, as I noted in this thread. Btw, what is a “left wing hack”? Oh I know, someone perhaps more knowledgeable than you are, so you start calling names again! Weak!
Sharon:“Similarly, it [the Repub plan] doesn’t force people who don’t want to buy insurance to get it.”
Correct, but you miss the point of the Dem plan. Like SS, like Medicare, like SCHIP, like mandatory car insurance, the idea of mandatory health insurance is to spread the risk over the entire population, and to have the entire population contribute, via premiums and taxes, for the health care of all. Can you imagine where we would be as a nation if we did not have these safety nets and shared responsibilities? And one more point that you conservative folks seem to forget: Our taxes support the safety net known as the DoD. I have yet to hear a one of you object to that tax supported entity!
Therefore, you Conservatives cherry pick the DoD, supporting their extravagances without question, but reject the social expenditures that Liberals support, while also supporting the DoD, though wishing for the military-industrial complex to be brought under much more control.
Sharon:“You’re right. It’s not 1/6th the cost of the Democrats’ plan. It’s 6% My bad.”
No, Sharon, Obama’s requirement is revenue neutrality, whereas BoehnerCare’s costs are not covered, therefore would increase the deficit and debt.
“We were told Democrats were going to cover everyone who is uninsured, which, according to Democrats, is about 45 million people. But Pelosi’s plan doesn’t do that. Worse, it doesn’t cover everyone at a cost this country can’t afford.”
You are correct about not covering everyone. But again, ObamaCare reduces those not covered from 17% of the population to 3%, whereas BoehnerCare does not reduce those not covered at all!!!
On your concern that half the doctors might quit, your reference does not support their quitting: “…hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, ….”
If they quit or retire early because of making less money, they would be in violation of their Hippocratic Oath. I would question the dedication to their patients that these potentially quitter doctors exhibit even now.
And I am well aware of what some specialists are making in our area where a large portion of the patients are on medicare or medicaid. We do not have a shortage of docs here! I actually think doctors incomes might rise, since they would have many fewer patients to treat pro bono.
Regarding reading your blog, Sharon, cut and paste your pieces with citations over here, where you can make them germane to the discussions here, rather than forcing us over here to be clicking back and forth to check you out.
Perry,
Since the Obamacare projects only go out 10 years, and no benefits are provided at least until 2013, how does that remain “revenue neutral.” Worse, you applaud the idea of people being taxed to the hilt to pay for a system they don’t want. Worse than that, the Pelosi bill determines what your insurance must cover, which makes costs even worse and creates a plan many people don’t want.
I’m not going to cut and paste from my blog because you are too lazy or stupid to read it. You basically end up with no argument except to scream about citations when the citations have been given to you repeatedly and the information is readily available. Act like a grownup and do some reading.
As for Cassandra being a leftwing hack, if you’ve read her posts and then bothered reading anyone else, you should be able to see quickly that (a) she regurgitates Democrat talking points without bothering to fact check, (b) she can’t handle differing viewpoints (hence the booting of DV from their site), and (c) she will duck hard questions that point to her partisanship and buffoonery. Now tell me that I do the same thing, even after I’ve given you various citations proving that to be false. *rolls eyes*
Health care is also a national defense issue. During all four major wars that this country fought in the last 100 years, there were significant numbers of men who were unable to serve because of health problems. Some, like a certain anal cyst were beyond the bar, but 1/3-1/2 of draft physicals were failed due to curable health issues.
Why do you resist health insurance for the poorest? Some of their kids will become soldiers. Don’t you care about defending America? Don’t you support the troops? Just think how many more people we can kill in other countries if we have healthy people here!
“If they quit or retire early because of making less money, they would be in violation of their Hippocratic Oath …”
That’s silly.
Nangleator wrote:
Assuming that statement to be true, and assuming that by “hundreds of thousands of people” you are referring to the maximum number of people who can be described as hundreds of thousands before you reach a million, and assuming that there is no duplication or persons in the two groups, we have 1,999,998 people who would be “happy to pay some extra tax,” out of well over a hundred million actual taxpayers. (There were 141,070,971 tax returns showing positive adjusted gross income for tax year 2007.) I come up with a whopping 1.42% who would be happy to pay more in taxes.
If providing a nationalized health care system is something that ought to be determined by what the public support, well:
The devil is in the details, of course. There is actually pretty high support for the government “doing something” about health care, when that’s just the generic question asked, but when people start to find out what it actually means, support drops, and opposition rises dramatically.
Why do you resist health insurance for the poorest?
The poorest already have government insurance.
> The poorest already have government insurance.
Yes, but the price is exorbitant. We want the better option with the lower price tag.
Dana, support drops and opposition rises based on several months of lies and fear-mongering, sponsored by the billionaires that would lose money if we gained safety and security.
And you actually believe that? Do you also believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy … ??
Don’t you care about world peace?
Just think how much more peaceful the world will be if we don’t do what you want.
That is reason enough not to support it.
Eric:And you actually believe that? Do you also believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy … ??
Eric, the information comes from the CBO. Do you have a more credible source, or are we just supposed to rely on your opinion?
Sharon:“I’m not going to cut and paste from my blog because you are too lazy or stupid to read it. You basically end up with no argument except to scream about citations when the citations have been given to you repeatedly and the information is readily available. Act like a grownup and do some reading.”
There goes Sharon again, off on her ego trip about here site.
Sharon, if you blog here, give your citations here. If your citations are on your blog, give the link. It’s as simple as that, even for “stupid” people like me.
I gave you plenty of information right here comparing your claims about the better late than never Repub plan to the House Dem plan, and the Repub plan comes up lacking in a number of respects, including cost and number of people covered. If you can’t digest this information, that’s on you!
I already understand very well that you are NEVER wrong, which goes quite well with your humongous ego! No wonder …. Never mind!
What Perry has labeled “Boehnercare” — a good a name for it as any! — is, in its way, just as bad as Obamacare, because it gets the federal government more deeply involved in something that shouldn’t be any of its business.
To me, Boehnercare is simply a diversion, something that the GOP hopes will drag things out, slow things down, and maybne divert votes away from whatever plan the Democrats present. In that regard, it’s a positive, but only in that regard. The best option is to do nothing, to pass no bill, to obligate the federal government and the taxpayers for nothing else.
I don’t want ObamaCare, and I don’t want Boehnercare; I want them to leave us alone!
Perry wrote:
What if we rely on their previous record for accuracy? If that’s the proper scoresheet, CBO’s numbers aren’t looking too good!
Rely on experience and common sense instead. One, do you really believe the Obama/Pelosi plan can cover more people and cost less? I don’t. And, for two, since when has a government program (and especially government entitlement programs) ever come in at the promised cost instead of going over budget rather quickly?
I’m pretty sure the CBO has a better record than the right-o-sphere.
Here’s a stunner for you guys: Health care isn’t free. We pay for it one way or another, whether through taxes or increased premiums. This is a bunch of massive hyperventilating from a bunch of neo-fiscal conservatives. If things cost more, we should pay more, all of us. If we have to raise taxes to cover people, that’s money that employers don’t have to spend.
This is such a simple, fundamental reality, yet you guys talk like you’re from some imaginary planet. You could save thousands not buying an employee health care, yet you’d complain if it meant an extra thousand on your taxes.
Taxation and public plans are nothing more than finding the most efficient way to get everybody covered, to spread the risk out.
Thanks for all the hysteria, though. Keep doing your best to make sure that only the poorest get killed off every year so you can shave a couple months off a shoulder surgery…
That is the problem with letting lefties frame a question: they talk as if everyone is inherently at equal health risk for everything that they want to compensate for, and as if we are presumptively the property of the state.
But everyone isn’t at the same intrinsic risk for everything, and many are at little or no health risk for much, and we are not the property of the state.
What the liberal plan does is punish the healthy, and the prudent, by coercively tying them into an inescapable cost spreading arrangement with the known negligent and self-destructive.
Thus, what they want to do is take a cost shifting scam, elevate it to a social justice principle, and turn it into a government mandate backed by the coercive power of the state; all in order to get the costs of their own copious dysfunctions underwritten by someone else.
They’re not advancing a social justice principle, they are engaging in an evolutionary strategy akin to the cuckoo bird’s.
And why would anyone want to buy into that?
We are all mortal, and may fall ill or dead in the next instant.
Are you seriously claiming that liberals support this because they’re unhealthier than conservatives?
So you just kind of create this imaginary world and it feel real to you, eh?
Straw man alert!
Jeromy, I know this is a new idea to you but try to argue points other people have made instead of points nobody came within a day’s horse-ride of making.
John: A straw man is when a hypothetical created followed by an attack. Jeromy’s comment is not a straw man!
Jeromy:“Taxation and public plans are nothing more than finding the most efficient way to get everybody covered, to spread the risk out.”
Well put!
This all boils down to an ideological difference, where one side acts primarily on self-interest, the other side acts on a sense of community responsibility.
This difference plays itself out on a multitude of different issues, implying that the only way to arrive as solutions is to seek common ground and compromise. Standing apart leads to nastiness, even open warfare. We are certainly in the nastiness stage at this moment!
DNW quoted, and commented :
Jeromy while not quoting, apparently responded:
Jeromy, the assertion that we are all mortal is logically irrelevant to the value of cost sharing since no one is offering physical immortality in exchange for cash. It can’t be had by anyone at any price.
But the fact that you see yourself and the rest of the race as standing perpetually on the brink is indicative of something important as you will see below.
And indeed some of you are unhealthier due to lifestyle choices and autogenic causes than some non-leftists; while some of you are probably not. It has been pretty well reported that lefties have a higher incidence of depressive disorders, than conservatives, and are generally unhappier.
Your friend Phoenician as an anecdotal example, has described himself as not only depressed, but as having chronic health issues; and so has Blu.
Every ardent collectivist I have run into on the Internet has some kind of emotional or mental problem lurking in the background, which eventually, given enough time and discussion, comes out.
It is simply not in the interest of any one valuing self-direction and liberty to openendedly underwrite the physical and emotional welfare of leftist dysfunctionals, at the cost of one’s own liberty. Where’s the benefit?
Even so, the question may not be so much whether any group of politically self-identifying persons have X percentage of health or mental problems on average, but their strategy as a biological organism in dealing with them.
In this, my collectivist “friend”, we may be rather more “constitutionally” different and politically incompatible -than you, or your ideological pal “split-the-difference-and-you-can be-a-half-slave, Perry” imagine.
It may well be that your kind has a heightened susceptibility to fear conditioning, (despite all of the papers claiming conservatives are tempermentally authoritarian) and that it really does take a collectivist village in order for your kind to live and function without trembling in anxiety.
You apparently seek not freedom of action and self-direction, but social connectedness and a feeling of cooperation and place, even if it is coerced and involuntary.
Like I have said a number of times before: It may not be that libertarians and conservatives are too insenstitive, but that your kind just has its “gain” set so high that it is unstable in any but totalitarian and collectivist environments. LOL
Or, maybe not. We’ll probably know soon enough …