Daily Archives: August 10, 2009
It comes from Paul Krugman -
So it seems that we aren’t going to have a second Great Depression after all. What saved us? The answer, basically, is Big Government.
Is it? Or is it a false premise?
Who said we were headed for a “second Great Depression”? And how does a non-falsifiable claim prove the point that “Big Government” saved us from anything?
Watch this video (Via Michele Malkin), or at least the first 5 minutes of it. In it you’ll see Niki Tsongas tell two whoppers. Seriously – the first topic she covers is about consultation with a physician about end of life care.
She claims such counseling is not mandatory and would only take place at the behest of the patient with the doctor merely getting compensated for his time if the patient decides to bring it up.
Charles Lane, in the Washington Post, refutes that claim:
Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive — money — to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.
That’s whopper number one. Number two is Tsongas’ attempt to claim that what she describes as her health care plan is the same thing they’re trying to put together for the American people.
Here’s the transcript of that particular moment:
CONSTITUENT: My question to you, Congresswoman Tsongas, is that if this is such a great plan, why did you opt out of it when you took the vote [loud applause, standing ovation]?
TSONGAS: People often say why don’t the American people have what those of us in Congress have. [Audience erupts] Let me explain what I have. Let me explain what I have. What I have is a tremendous array — you know, last year when I went to a discussion — what I have is a tremendous array of choices. And I made a choice based on what I was willing to pay for and what made sense in terms of coverage for me and my family. [Audience shouts out: "We want choice! We want choice!] This is essentially what we are creating for the American people. We are creating greater choice.
Tsongas is claiming that you will have the same choice she claims she has – pick from a “tremendous array”, make a choice based on “what I was willing to pay” and “what made sense in terms of coverage for me and my family”.
But you are not being offered any of that. None. You’ll be offered a very limited array of insuance that meets the criteria the government sets for entry into the “public plan” and will include mandated coverage you must buy whether you want it or not.
If you don’t believe me read what Shawn Tully of Forbes has to say about your “choices” contained in the bills:
The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through “qualified” plans offered by health-care “exchanges” that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can’t really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer.
Today, many states require these “standard benefits packages” — and they’re a major cause for the rise in health-care costs. Every group, from chiropractors to alcohol-abuse counselors, do lobbying to get included. Connecticut, for example, requires reimbursement for hair transplants, hearing aids, and in vitro fertilization.
The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs, mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services. It also requires policies to insure “children” until the age of 26. That’s just the starting list. The bills would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to add to the list of required benefits, based on recommendations from a committee of experts. Americans, therefore, wouldn’t even know what’s in their plans and what they’re required to pay for, directly or indirectly, until after the bills become law.
Two blatant falsehoods within the first 4 minutes, put out there by a member of Congress who has either not read the bill or is purposely distorting the truth to make it sound more palatable. What’s interesting is it appears, given the response to both, that her constituents are quite aware of when they’re being deceived.
As an aside, about 9 seconds in you’ll see a sign which has a picture of Barack Obama with a Hitler-style moustache. Look carefully at the url on the bottom of the pic. It’s from an organization whose founder has, 7 times, run for the presidency of the US as a Democrat. Yeah, he’s a whack-job, but he’s the left’s whack-job.
Part of the reason is the financial situation and part of it is the new evidence that science is producing which is making Americans more skeptical about the AGW crowd’s claims.
Recent Gallup polls carry the news:
Here’s what Gallup found: The number of Americans who say the media have exaggerated global warming jumped to a record 41 percent in 2009, up from 35 percent a year ago. The most marked increase came among political independents, whose ranks of doubters swelled from 33 percent to 44 percent. Republican doubters grew from 59 percent to 66 percent, while Democratic skeptics stayed at around 20 percent.
What’s more, fewer Americans believe the effects of global warming have started to occur: 53 percent see signs of a hotter planet, down from 61 percent in 2008. Global warming placed last among eight environmental concerns Gallup asked respondents to rank, with water pollution landing the top spot.
Another recent Gallup study found that, for the first time in 25 years of polling, more Americans care about economic growth than the environment. Just 42 percent of people surveyed said the environment takes precedence over growth, while 51 percent asserted expansion carries more weight. That reverses results from 2008, when 49 percent of respondents said the environment was paramount and 42 percent said economic growth came first. In 1985, the poll’s first year, 61 percent placed a bigger priority on the environment, while 28 percent ranked economic growth highest.
Scientists have begun to push back against those who have been claiming “consensus” for so long. And, Americans are simply becoming more informed about the matter. Part of that is the effect of the new media which has broken the monopoly hold of the mass media’s ability to shape public opinion. As the poll points out, Americans increasingly think the media is exaggerating the problem. That skepticism has to be based in something, and the only media carrying the skeptical side of the argument is the new media.
Obviously, since the financial meltdown, priorities have also changed. While AGW was apparently never a high priority among environmental priorities, it is dead last now. That’s again because people are becoming more informed about the economic impact of the draconian legislative measures being touted as a solution. And as time goes by, and there is more of a focus put on cap-and-trade legislation, I expect the numbers in opposition to go up even further.
Naturally the opposition disagrees and cites polls from Pew and the National Wildlife Federation that they claim contradict Gallup (no date for those two polls is given). But as you recall, Rasmussen had a very recent poll which had similar results to the Gallup poll.
The radical agenda is in trouble, folks. Whether that means Democrats will “listen” as they claim they do, is another matter entirely. I fully expect them to attempt to ram both health care and cap-and-trade through. But that doesn’t mean we have to give them a pass if they do. Be your “un-American” best and tell them loudly and strongly that cap-and-trade is not a good thing for the US and is not something that should be passed while the science of AGW is decidedly unproven.
Again, what’s the freakin’ rush?
When we were still talking about “health care reform”, before it was renamed “health insurance reform”, one of the big selling points was government was going to change the way we did business. I.e. it was going to stress “preventive care” which, so the Dems claimed, would be less costly in the long-run.
The CBO, however, has said, “not so fast”. In a letter to Henry Waxman, among others, Dr. Douglas Elmendorf, Director of the Congressional Budget Office writes:
“Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall,” Elmendorf wrote. “That result may seem counterintuitive.
“For example, many observers point to cases in which a simple medical test, if given early enough, can reveal a condition that is treatable at a fraction of the cost of treating that same illness after it has progressed. In such cases, an ounce of prevention improves health and reduces spending — for that individual,” Elmendorf wrote. “But when analyzing the effects of preventive care on total spending for health care, it is important to recognize that doctors do not know beforehand which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case of acute illness, it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway. … Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness.”
This is another in a long line of “facts” the Democrats have attempted to use to sell their “more coverage, better care, less cost” health
care insurance reform. And it is another “fact” that has been found to be false.
Going through Elmendorf’s reasoning provides a very good explanation of why it is false. But I’ll bet that none of that reasoning or information will find its way into Democratic talking points about the goals of this legislation. Instead the false “fact” about preventive care lowering overall costs will stubbornly remain.
If so, my suggestion is you send it in as a “fishy” statement to be refuted by the White House crew that deals with these sorts of fishy facts.
Oh wait, nevermind. Apparently the White House has already dealt with the fishy CBO’s report- well sort of:
Responding to the CBO letter, Linda Douglass, the communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform, said that, “to work, prevention has to be targeted. Proven services need to be directed to populations that need it, as the CBO letter suggests. We will continue to work with Congress on ensuring that dollars are spent on prevention that gets the biggest bang for the buck.”
Douglass argued, however, that there would be long-term financial savings, saying “we can’t forget that many of the benefits of prevention will accrue to the Federal government in thel long term as opposed to the near term. Prevention results in longer, healthier, more productive lives — yielding savings that don’t typically show up on a score sheet. We have to return to common sense: keeping people out of a doctor’s office or hospitals saves money. Seventy-five per cent of our health care spending goes to treat chronic diseases, many of which could be prevented from developing in the first place . Proven preventive services are worth it.”
Notice that the CBO says the problem is that preventive care can’t be targeted because doctors have no idea who would benefit until they run batteries of tests on everyone. And that is what the CBO highlights as running the costs up.
Additionally, no one is claiming “proven preventive services” don’t work or aren’t “worth it”. What CBO is claiming is they’re not “less costly”, something Douglass avoids addressing. All in all a most unsatisfactory and fishy response to the CBO argument.
Last night, Twitter was all atwitter with the Drudge rumor that Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer had penned a USA Today editorial in which they called the health care protesters “un-American”. My reaction was, “surely they can’t be that dumb “.
To use a variation on a phrase, “Yes they can”:
These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.
Of course the rest of whatever message they have in the editorial will be lost because of this bit of abject stupidity. Americans have little tolerance for being characterized as “un-American” when they speak out at meetings with the representatives who work for them. And they’re especially intolerant of those who purport to be political leaders and use language like that.
But then, no one has ever tried to make the case that Nancy Pelosi, or Steny Hoyer for that matter, had good political instincts. You know, for instance, that the editorial is most likely Pelosi’s idea, and she wanted Hoyer for cover. Allowing himself to be used that way doesn’t say much for Hoyer’s political acumen, and Nancy Pelosi’s lack thereof is legendary. This editorial just puts a cherry on top.
It is one thing to plead for civil debate and ask the rhetoric be toned down. That would most likely find some sympathetic ears out there and perhaps even agreement from some on the other side . Instead, apparently completely clueless to building sentiment against the legislation in question, Pelosi and Hoyer decide on the “enemy” approach. Characterize good Americans who are tired of being lied too as “un-American” when they approach their representative with questions and get a little steamed when he or she avoid answering them or pops off with talking points which everyone knows are a bunch of crap.
Yup, that makes them “un-American”. They’re un-American for demanding answers from slippery pols who seem to have their minds made up about the legislation and were hoping to hold pro-forma townhalls stuffed with friendly faces to validate their position. They’re un-American for disrupting what are supposed to be “shut up and listen” sessions instead of open forums in which constituents ask questions and receive answers to them. They’re un-American for coming out and demanding their representatives actually represent them and not their party.
Pelosi, Hoyer and most of the Democrats are apparently tone deaf when it comes to this issue. This is their agenda, not the country’s agenda, and they seem bound and determined to push through something that the country is telling them loudly at townhalls and through various polls, that they do not want.
Instead of listening, like Pelosi has said they planned on doing during the recess they’ve decided to declare war on the American public, because that public isn’t following along like good little sheep and allowing the Democrat judas goat to lead them into health care hell.
They have questions, like “what’s the rush”? And “have you read the bill”? And “if not, why not and what business do you have voting or even holding an opinion on something you haven’t read?”
Of course it’s rather hard to hold a “discussion” or a “debate” with someone who hasn’t read what they’ll be voting on. It also makes it obvious that when they try to tell you what’s in the bill they haven’t read that they’re spouting words someone else has given them which may or may not have any basis in fact.
And Pelosi has the gall and temerity to call Americans who object to that, however loudly, “un-American”? She truly is the poster-child for everything that is wrong with a seniority system. She’s been a disaster for the Democrats and has gone over the line with this statement. As is obvious, she has again put party in front of what is best for the country. She should resign her post as Speaker of the House in shame for such an outlandish insult to the American people.
UPDATE: An example of a lefty blog which either chooses to ignore the point, or completely misses it in favor of pretending the outrage on the right is completely misplaced.