Fact Sheet: Myths and the Truth About The Health Care Bill | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 hidden)
It's Well Formatted Shit (none / 0)
The thing I like about you Tom is that even though we have heatedly disagreed, I'm quite certain you're sincere and honest.

I don't think Hamsher is wrong, I'm quite certain she's a liar.  Well, some of it is clever deception, but other bits are just straight lies.

Her abortion bit that she wrote a couple days ago was one of the most offensive lies from the "Left" I've ever read.  It was really no different than the "Death Panels" from Palin, if anything worse.  Should I assert that she's against the plan because Obama's black?  That would just as reasonable counterpoint.

Here's one instance from this, she writes:

"A middle class family of four making $66,370 will be forced to pay $5,243 per year for insurance. After basic necessities, this leaves them with $8,307 in discretionary income -- out of which they would have to cover clothing, credit card and other debt, child care and education costs, in addition to $5,882 in annual out-of-pocket medical expenses for which families will be responsible.  Many families who are already struggling to get by would be better off saving the $5,243 in insurance costs and paying their medical expenses directly, rather than being forced to by coverage they can't afford the co-pays on."

First thing, $66,370 wasn't just a random number, that is the absolute worst-case (the cut off for subsidies).  But that's fine, we should look at the worst-case - even if it's not labeled as such.  But her numbers are wrong and she fucking knows it.  Nate Silver has addressed this twice, and I'm sure it's been brought to her attention.

That kind of stunt goes on and on.

She's hypocritical, a liar, running neck and neck with Larry Johnson on the biggest excuses for a human being on the "Left".  Fuck her.

My website: History By Day
Follow my on twitter @historyday.

by HistoryByDay on 03/19/2010 07:31:34 PM EST

1 Down (none / 0)
17 to go!

by Tom Hanc on 03/19/2010 07:33:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Here's One More (none / 0)
MYTH: The bill will provide immediate access to insurance for Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition.

TRUTH: Access to the "high risk pool" is limited and the pool is underfunded. It will cover few people, and will run out of money in 2011 or 2012.

Only those who have been uninsured for more than six months will qualify for the high risk pool. Only 0.7% of those without insurance now will get coverage, and the CMS report estimates it will run out of funding by 2011 or 2012.

Fact: Along with the high risk pool, children would immediately be exempt from being rejected (and families who could no longer be rejected because of their children).  Along with that, people up to 26 can stay on their parents plan and the expansion of Medicaide all kick in.

So the 0.7%, well, not so much.

There, that's two.  Want to address her lies?

My website: History By Day
Follow my on twitter @historyday.

by HistoryByDay on 03/19/2010 07:39:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That's not two. (none / 0)

That's expanding on her point to show that kids and generally healthy people (26 and under) get help as well.

That's good on paper, but her main point still stands.

by Tom Hanc on 03/19/2010 07:45:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well, No, It's A Lie (none / 0)
she wrote: "Only 0.7% of those without insurance now will get coverage" (in regards to pre-existing conditions)

That is factually false.

Here's another one, the first one she has listed.  Besides using the CBO score from November instead of the bill that's actually being passed (which insures more), the number includes those not here legally.  And while you can make an argument that they should be covered, not noting it (unlike the CBO report that does note it) is intentionally misrepresenting the information, aka lying.

If her argument could stand on it's own merit, she wouldn't have to lie, ehh?

My website: History By Day
Follow my on twitter @historyday.

by HistoryByDay on 03/19/2010 08:04:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It's several arguments (none / 0)

Some are 100% correct and some are incomplete or a little off and could (and should) be expanded upon and clarified, with hyperlinks at least. Obviously she chose facts and stats that support her general position (just like you do and just like I do), but (overall) they do seem to be correct and damning facts and stats.

Like I said to the climate deterioration denier yesterday, even if you can dismiss 1 or 2 or 3 of these points, there are so many others left standing that in the end, it's irrelevant.

by Tom Hanc on 03/19/2010 08:14:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What's Left Standing? (none / 0)
What's left standing that could pass Congress?  Great, she says she's for single-payer.  I'm for world peace, unicorns, and naked Fridays.  At some point tho, you have to step back into reality.

And I don't think it's just debunking '1 or 2 things' that she got wrong.  The heart of the article is a lie.

Btw, OT, but here's a good substance video from today w/ Ezra v. Ratigan (the end on costs is p'bly the best part of it).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id /21134540/vp/35953913#35953 913

My website: History By Day
Follow my on twitter @historyday.

by HistoryByDay on 03/19/2010 08:25:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The heart is not a lie (none / 0)

if the heart is that this is a corporate gift that masks rising costs with bloated subsidies.

I agree about Single Payer, but as I've said, the fact that the Dems didn't start with that as the opening offer was a political failure of epic proportions. At any rate, a Medicare-Buy-In was entirely possible (and still could be in the future if the current effort fails, but it won't).

Obama disastrously pressured Kucinich, not the Ben Nelsons and Joe Liebermans. If he'd pressured right people, right now I'd be supporting this bill, a bill with an actual chance to provide real competition and a bill that could actually lay a solid foundation to improve upon.

by Tom Hanc on 03/19/2010 08:35:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I Agree (none / 0)
that up until recently the Obama led effort has been executed pretty poorly.  I don't think the votes for a Medicare-Buy-In (which wouldn't work anyways without a mandate, but maybe that's for another time) were ever there, but none-the-less this hasn't been the smoothest year on HCR.

I disagree on the overall tune on subsidies.  The subsidies are essentially one big progressive tax.  I mean, lets just be blunt about this.  It's taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor - for the most part.  Half the spending goes to Medicaid/Chip, the other half to the exchange.  Most of the money raised to pay for that comes from taxing the wealthy and eliminating Medicare Adavantage.

My website: History By Day
Follow my on twitter @historyday.

by HistoryByDay on 03/19/2010 08:58:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wow (none / 0)
You hold Unicorns and Single Payer systems in the same category?
Says a lot about some progressives and how truly progressive they are, left and right is broken in this country. I think that’s why we see such weak leftists.

by Alloy on 03/19/2010 08:44:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Legislation (none / 0)
in the U.S. has to go through the Legislative Branch.  I think you're about as likely to look out the back window and see a unicorn as you would to see the Legislative Branch pass single-payer.  I'm not sure you'd get 125 votes of the 216 needed, not to mention the Senate.

My website: History By Day
Follow my on twitter @historyday.

by HistoryByDay on 03/19/2010 09:03:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Grayson's (none / 0)
Bill, if Obama got behind that or a similar bill from the start we could just expand Medicare to cover all since its foundation is already built. Just massively tweak it and expand rates for doctors and hospitals as well. I never said it has to be a new Single Payer system.

by Alloy on 03/19/2010 09:57:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Health Care Consultant RJ Eskow (none / 0)

supports passing this bill.

But just now I heard him say that Hamsher's points are overall correct.

 

by Tom Hanc on 03/19/2010 08:54:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're still talking trinkets. (none / 0)
This bill does not lower our national health care bill from the ~2.5 trillion per year that we spend.  Without that, it's worthless, because we won't be able to afford health care.  When the subsidies run out in two or three years, it won't matter how many children can't be dropped from their parent's insurance.  Every child will be on SCHIP, and the taxpayers will be on the hook for the outrageous insurance fees, which are, after all, completely unregulated.

by EveningStarNM on 03/20/2010 02:40:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Fact Sheet: Myths and the Truth About The Health Care Bill | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 hidden)