Toxic Fallout from Obamacare

22 Responses to Toxic Fallout from Obamacare

1. Libby says:

   Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 12:09 pm

   “The problem with progressive’s is that they treat people, free citizens, like cardboard cutouts or statistical units in a report rather than thinking adults who will change their behavior when challenged economically.”

   Hey, hey, hey. [That’s a diabolical chortle.]

   See, what “self-insured” actually amounts to is “uninsured”, i.e., employees wind up paying the tax/penalty (call it what you will) and SINGLE PAYER! Here we come!
2. Chris says:

   Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 12:14 pm

   Tina quoted Townhall as saying this:

   “Despite President Obama’s promise that his plan would not add “one dime” to the deficit, the Government Accountability Office announced last week that it would more likely add 62,000,000,000,000 dimes (or $6.2 trillion) over 75 years.”

   Tina, I pointed out that this was a misrepresentation of the GAO’s report over a week ago. The GAO did not announce that the ACA would “more likey” add $6.2 trillion to the deficit. They ran two separate projections: one that assumed the cost-cutting measures in the ACA would succeed, and one which assumed they would not. The GAO never drew any conclusions about which scenario was “more likely.” They found that if these measures did succeed, the deficit would actually be reduced. But if the cost-cutting measures failed, it would add $6.2 trillion to the deficit.

   Conservative blogs such as Townhall then spun the story, leaving out the “if,” to make it look like the GAO concluded that the ACA would add to the deficit, period. This was not the conclusion of the GAO. Conservatives may believe that these measures will fail, and that the deficit will increase. But that is their opinion, not the opinion of the GAO, and pretending that it is is dishonest.

   You know all this, because you replied to the comment in which I initially pointed it out. Jack acknowledged the error, but you did not; instead you changed the subject to a statement by Obama which you believed was untrue, as if that justified your own false statement. So again: why are you repeating information you know is false? And are you willing to admit that it is false now?
3. Tina says:

   Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 2:51 pm

   Yes Libby, thank you for your honesty in enthusiastically stating the true goal in writing this piece of crap legislation.

   The radical progressives in control of the democrat Party KNOW they can’t be honest with the people about what they want because the people love their freedom and don’t want a socialist system. In order to push their extreme ideas through progressives use trickery, deception, lies and pretty sounding but empty promises. The uninformed believe they will now get superior health care for free and what will happen is we all all get a very inferior level of care, less innovation, denied or delayed treatment and all for a lot of money. What we will get is a system that eats up a very large portion of GDP and opportunity will dry up, as it has now, putting more people on welfare and food stamps.

   UGLY!
4. Tina says:

   Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 3:32 pm

   Chris I am not prepared to say it is false information for the simple reason that the report itself is subject to interpretation and a lack of information.

   Apparently the argument is that the gross cost has been cited by conservatives but the net cost will not go up. This is because of projected savings. But those savings are dependent on many factors that have not yet been resolved. In total the projection still exceeds what Obama promised the cost would be and there is no reason to think this government program will be any different than others that have, over 50-60 years, cost much much more than originally projected.

   By way of response I will direct those interested to a few articles that demonstrate my reluctance to fall in line with your position.

   Redstate does a very good job of explaining how CBO is used by wily politicians to project the numbers they want. Using graphs, the author shows how accurate figures were delayed or hidden in order to sell the ACA to the American people. Repair_Man_Jack of Redstate concludes:

   We perceive the true mendacity of passing a law in 2010 and phasing its actual operation to start in 2014 when we compare the costs for each estimate from 2020 to 2022. The original estimate has no such costs; the new estimate has $481Bn. Yep, that’s almost ½ Trillion that got laundered via the ground rules and assumptions relevant to how the CBO estimates costs. It kind of makes me wonder how Congress got the high approval rating of 11%.

   In conclusion, the CBO didn’t lie to Phillip Klein or to Ma and Pa Middleton. They played a game by a circumscribed set of rules. The legislators that designed the Affordable Care Act knew these rules and gamed them in a disingenuous fashion to make the CBO estimate appear to say something that was obviously not the actual truth. Figures don’t lie, but liars can and do figure. Therefore, the CBO can, is and will be turned into a tool of disinformation by the dishonest leeches America keeps sending to Congress with depressing regularity.

   Douglas Holts-Eakin of National Review explains that the CBO report is inconclusive and based on speculation:

   Today the CBO released its projection of the ACA budget baseline, concluding that the net cost of the bill is now $84 billion lower. The essence of the CBO analysis is that for every person that would have been in the Medicaid expansion had their states accepted it who ends up uninsured, taxpayers save $6,000. For every such person who ends up in the exchanges, it costs federal taxpayers $3,000. The CBO assumes that there will be roughly 3 million of each group. The bottom lines follow.

   It is equally important that the CBO described what it did not do. It did not (a) identify which states will or will not expand Medicaid, (b) which states will do so in 2014 (versus later), or (c) which states will undertake full expansions. Thus, the CBO estimates are not the result of a scenario, but rather the average of a large number of possibilities — in short, they’re highly uncertain. In contrast, our AAF estimates (*) correspond to specific states and specific populations.

   The CBO also did not include in its analysis the impact of the maintenance-of-effort provisions, instead assuming that states would not take advantage of the optional nature of the Medicaid expansions to reduce their rolls after 2014. To the extent that states shift from Medicaid to the exchanges, the cost will go up.

   Finally, the CBO’s analysis focuses only on the direct impact of the coverage provisions (Medicaid, exchange subsidies, penalty taxes), and not interactions with the remainder of the law. Put differently, this does not constitute a comprehensive re-estimate of the cost of the ACA.

   An interesting feature of the report is that the CBO estimates that the ACA will cut Medicare spending by $741 billion over the next 10 years, up from the roughly $500 billion advertised at passage (see page 5, table 2 — Medicare and Other Medicaid and CHIP Provisions). This change reflects both the fact that the budget window is different, and that in the absence of cuts, Medicare is growing quite rapidly. Accordingly, the size of the cuts are growing rapidly as well.

   The final aspect of the CBO analysis, contained in a letter to Speaker Boehner, is that repeal of the ACA will increase the deficit by $109 billion over 10 years. Interestingly, $95 billion is “off-budget” savings — CBO parlance for Social Security taxes. Put differently, the ACA is budgetarily “sound” only because of higher taxes — no health-care savings in sight.

   The bottom line: The CBO report is unsurprising and does not shed much real light on the actual future impact of the ACA on the federal budget. It does reinforce the basic bad news: no real bending of the cost curve, necessitating higher taxes and large Medicare cuts to make the numbers add up.

   My bottom line is that costs will be significantly higher when all is said and done. It will cost more than the $900 billion price tag that Obama deceptively told the people it would cost. It does not make healthcare or health insurance less expensive for the average consumer. It has created a lot of confusion and expense to those that must comply with the complex provisions of the law. And as Holtz-Eakin points out, only through higher taxes and cuts in Medicare, two of the more odious provisions of the law, do the CBO projections add up. If these are positive outcomes for the American people, if you can swallow that as “savings” or “low cost” congratulate yourself on being one of the more gullible citizens in these United States.

   (*) The National Review article refers AAF estimates which can be read here.

   There are other ways to count the cost of Obamacare. Loss of freedom and choice are two examples.

   The American Enterprise Institute:

   The first two pillars are mandates on individuals (to obtain) and employers (to provide) health coverage. These are unprecedented. Most people can go without healthcare longer than they can make it without food. Yet, even for a necessity such as food, lawmakers do not impose any remotely equivalent restrictions on freedom of choice.

   Even recognizing that free people sometimes may make very misguided choices about what they eat, with adverse consequences to both their health and to society, America has historically respected the rights of individuals to choose what, when and how they eat. But in the case of health care, ACA revokes those kinds of rights-saying government knows best and penalizing citizens and employers who disagree.

   Expanded federal entitlements comprise the third pillar outlined by Capretta et al. These come in the form of Medicaid (which, after the Supreme Court decision in June, now is expected to account for slightly more than one third of the 30 million individuals who will be newly covered under the law) and subsidized coverage available through state-based health exchanges. The Supreme Court fortunately forestalled the law’s efforts to coercively extort states into accepting a massive expansion in Medicaid coverage. Even so, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) still projects more than a one-third increase in non-elderly Medicaid eligible by the year 2022.

   More worrisome still, over the next 75 years the CBO’s latest long-term spending projections show even with ACA (which, remember, was supposed to “bend the cost curve”), the federal government will increase in size by 48 percent relative to the economy. Fully 100 percent of that increase can be attributed to growth in federally funded health care entitlements, i.e., Medicare, Medicaid and exchange subsidies.[1] There are very real and legitimate questions about the ability of the federal government to finance these entitlements over the long term.

   As more than 100,000 Medicaid recipients who were suddenly tossed off of TennCare discovered a few years ago, things can turn ugly quickly when governments discover they no longer can afford their generous health promises.

   The fourth pillar is “squeezing funds out of Medicare and choking off private plan choices.” These funds include a combination of reductions in spending as well as new Medicare-related taxes. As Medicare’s public trustee Charles Blahous has demonstrated, the half trillion in resources diverted from Medicare either can be used to shore up Medicare or they can be used to bankroll the new Medicaid and Exchange entitlements. They cannot be used to do both.

   Because these “Medicare funds” instead will have been spent on the new entitlements, the government will have to borrow additional funds to keep Medicare afloat. An estimated $136 billion of those savings will come in the form of cuts to Medicare Advantage plans, resulting in half the seniors who would have joined such plans by 2017 being forced back into the inefficient and fragmented fee-for-service Medicare system. Instead of giving seniors genuine choices that would reward plans that provide coordinated and effective care (and produce sizable savings to Medicare to boot), ACA has stacked the decks in favor of a badly outdated fee-for-service model that decades of research has shown costs more than it should even while producing worse outcomes.

   The fifth pillar detailed by the authors is the more than one half trillion in new federal taxes. (For the adverse consequences of these levies, see this earlier post.)

   The exchanges make up pillar number six. Exchanges are a sensible idea advocated by free-market analysts, but unfortunately “Obamacare took these market-based ideas and twisted them beyond recognition into a bureaucratic knot. The exchanges are weighed down with rules, regulations, and government restrictions and crushed under a mountain of bureaucracy.” The law gives extraordinary discretion to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to determine which plans are permitted to participate in the exchange. The federal government also will require exchanges to perform at least a dozen “minimum functions” such as checking (every month!) the incomes of people who qualify for subsidies.

   The seventh pillar is federal government-sponsored health plans. At least two national plans created by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management must be offered in each state exchange even if the state has no interest in them. These plans will compete on a playing field stacked in their favor, since the OPM has the discretion to use less rigid rules than those faced by private insurers (e.g., how much to spend on administration).

   Federal control over private health insurance makes up the eighth and last pillar. Plans must take all comers even if they wait until they are sick to buy coverage (given the modest penalties for failing to obtain health insurance, the law actually will create perverse incentives for consumers to buy their coverage later than sooner). ACA imposes restrictions on pricing as well as extensive rules about benefits. As the recent dust-up about contraceptive coverage demonstrated, the government will require you to purchase certain benefits even if you have no interest in them or moral or religious objections to paying for them.

   Once again, government experts are displacing the individual judgment of patients about what is best for them. This is unprecedented. The federal government does not do this in automobile, homeowners, or life insurance. But for some reason, in health insurance, the federal experts presume to know best.

   Going back to food, which arguably is more of day-to-day “necessity” of life than medical care, the federal government does not tell you what you must purchase or tell grocery stores how to price what they sell (or how fast their prices can rise). The contrast between the extraordinary freedom of choice we allow for food and the greatly restricted choices ACA will impose in medical care could not be more stark.

   America’s Founders fought for a limited government that presupposed free citizens capable of making responsible choices. It is unimaginable that they pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to create a government as intrusive on the lives of ordinary citizens as the vision embodied in ACA.

   Footnotes

   [1] This is based on official CBO projections using the alternative fiscal scenario, which provides the most realistic projection of ACA revenues and expenditures. It only includes non-interest federal spending, which will rise from 22.0 percent of GDP in 2012 to 32.6 percent by 2087-an increase of 10.6 percentage points. During that same period, gross Medicare spending will grow from 3.7 to 13.3 percent of GDP and spending on Medicaid, CHIP and Exchange subsidies will grow from 1.7 to 5.0 percent of GDP, for a combined increase of 12.9 percentage points for health entitlements.

   If we the people fail to reassert our love of freedom and choice the radical progressives in the Democrat Party will move to control other areas of our lives and personal business.

   Thank you for continuing to rediscover our American heritage and the liberty that has made it possible for any American to strive and achieve beyond his wildest dreams if he chooses. We are a compassionate people who give of ourselves and our largess to help others but we have not historically been a people who depends on government to provide for our basic needs.

   Obamacare is still very unpopular.

   CATO
5. Chris says:

   Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 4:46 pm

   Tina: “Chris I am not prepared to say it is false information for the simple reason that the report itself is subject to interpretation and a lack of information.”

   Whatever flaws you see in this report or the CBO’s, does not change the fact that the GAO did not announce what you and Townhall are claiming it announced. Whether you personally believe the ACA will increase the deficit is immaterial at the moment. Your passionate belief that this law is bad for the country does not justify misrepresenting a source.

   If anything, doing so only hurts your argument, because it makes people on the fence wonder why you would feel the need to cite sources inaccurately in order to support your case.

   The intellectually honest thing to do would be to admit that you misunderstood the report, but you still see plenty of reasons to oppose Obamacare, and then list those reasons. It is not intellectually honest to say that because of those other reasons, it doesn’t matter whether this particular detail is true.

   But you always seem so reluctant to conceding on even the smallest details, even when presented with proof that your supporting points are incorrect (remember the long, drawn-out discussion about Dr. Vecchio’s false claims about mammograms?)

   I don’t get it. If you are confident about the strength of your overall argument, then you shouldn’t worry about admitting when you’ve gotten a detail wrong. But you act as if by doing so, your entire argument will collapse like a Jenga game.
6. Harold Ey says:

   Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 9:52 pm

   Who’s more at fault – Obama or the idiots who voted for him?
   “I don’t get it. If you are confident about the strength of your overall argument, then you shouldn’t worry about admitting when you’ve gotten a detail wrong”
7. Chris says:

   Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 6:38 am

   Harold, I don’t understand how your comment relates to the part you’ve quoted.
8. Tina says:

   Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 9:58 am

   Chris maybe my reluctance comes from many years of watching the left lie and misrepresent the facts when there weren’t many voices to counter their claims. As a result entire generations of people have grown up with bogus information and history.

   I have watched government spend taxpayer money my entire life. I watched as projections for costs have been wrong on the savings side in nearly every case. I think that for at least one year, projected cost for Bush’s prescription drug plan came in under budget. I have no reason to believe the rosy scenario that CBO projected will play out in reality. “IF” is not a positive selling point in my opinion.

   It amazes me that anyone could look at what this law represents, covering many more people in a system with less competition, added taxes and regulation, and rules that are complex and confusing, and think that it won’t bust budget projections. The expansion in IRS workers alone should tell you something…the big fat bureaucracy that is being created will be very expensive and wasteful.

   So, here’s a token to you, since it seems to mean so much:

   Chris noted a second CBO scenario that was left out of the account I cited which might also represent a possible outcome.

   Given the mountains of evidence that a big bureaucracy added to the government has always been more expensive that projected, common sense tells me that Chris’s favored scenario is highly unlikely to represent a true picture of the future cost of Obamacare.
9. Chris says:

   Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 12:25 pm

   Tina: “Chris maybe my reluctance comes from many years of watching the left lie and misrepresent the facts when there weren’t many voices to counter their claims.”

   But Tina, that shouldn’t make you reluctant to admit when you have made an error. If anything, it should be a lesson for what not to do. It should make you strive to give your readers only the most accurate information. Instead, you’re making it sound as if, since your opponents often lie and misrepresent the facts, it’s OK for you to do that too. That does not demonstrate personal responsibility.

   ““IF” is not a positive selling point in my opinion.”

   It doesn’t matter whether it’s positive or negative. It matters that the “if” was part of the GAO’s report, and that this “if” was left out of conservative blogs’ citations of the GAO report. It should concern you that so many of your trusted sources of information either did not understand or purposefully misrepresented the report they were citing. How are they any better than “the left” when they do such things?

   “Chris noted a second CBO scenario that was left out of the account I cited which might also represent a possible outcome.”

   No, it wasn’t a second CBO scenario, it was a second GAO scenario.
10. Pie Guevara says:

    Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 3:08 pm

    I find it intriguing that even at this late date the much vaunted CBO still cannot figure out what Obamacare is.

    Perhaps the most astonishing revelation of the CBO’s recent inconclusive analysis is that it comes almost exactly 3 three years after Nancy Pelosi’s wizened announcement, “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

    Evidently “finding out” what is in this ridiculous, bloated, and obfuscated piece of garbage legislation inflicted upon US citizens by magniloquelent and always condescending progressive know-it-all blow-hards is still somewhat problematic.

    My bet is that the conservative analysis (which sides with the CBO’s less favorable scenario) is correct. But hey, what the heck do I know? I have only been personally watching the federal (and our own state government) for 45 years grow itself into a gigantic, unmanageable, expensive, unaccountable, insolvent morass of self-interested, self-perpetuating, inefficient, economy ruining bureaucratic dynasties that have pushed us into an outrageously self-destructive society of debt-bondage slaves.

    Welcome to the progressive Brave New World of taxpayer-citizen-chattel.

    But don’t worry, BE HAPPY! It’s the Obamaville paradise!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEYFFiEnUjQ
11. Tina says:

    Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 4:19 pm

    Chris: “It should concern you that so many of your trusted sources of information either did not understand or purposefully misrepresented the report they were citing”

    Chris considering the history of government programs and costs always going up presented with two scenarios that are at best guesses, it is not unusual or strange to me to write that CBO has “projected” a dire possibility. that is how I read it. You seem to think that these projections are facts. If they were I agree I would be remiss in failing to mention the other possibility. In this case I think the other possibility is absurd. But there is another element I would like to introduce into this discussion. My post does not indicate a projection. My post indicates cynicism about the CBO projection. it was a retort based on the president’s promise that his plan would not add one dime…

    …the Government Accountability Office announced last week that it would more likely add 62,000,000,000,000 dimes…

    In that context I think it is appropriate to say that the plan would “MORE LIKELY” add 62,000,000,000 dimes!
12. Tina says:

    Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 4:33 pm

    Thanks Pie, your remarks are greatly appreciated!

    I also enjoyed wasting away for a few minutes listening to the Obamaville song.

    And while I was there gave my attention to the Reagan video “Reagan warned us”. Now there was a man that loved the country and knew how to lead!
13. Chris says:

    Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 6:54 pm

    Tina, you are free to believe that the GAO’s more positive analysis is “absurd,” and you are free to say so. That doesn’t change the fact that you claimed they “announced” something which they did not, in fact, announce. It’s that simple. Whether or not you can admit to that is on you; I have said my peace, and there’s obviously nothing I can do to convince you.
14. Tina says:

    Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 11:05 pm

    Fine with me. I guess the words “more likely” just don’t have any meaning for you.

    Does it occur to you that your knee jerk defense of this terrible law makes it impossible for you to notice such words…or the not so subtle little joke?

    And isn’t it about time you started telling the truth about the many problems in this law and admit that it isn’t really working out as promised?
15. Pie Guevara says:

    Friday, March 8, 2013 at 2:44 pm

    Looks to me like Nancy Pelosi’s wanna-be lap dog has gone full Chihuahua on Tina, again. *SNORE*

    Who’s the naughty one who got into the box of Puppy Uppers?

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7msc7_saturday-night-live-puppy-uppers_fun#.UTpoAaArwwo
16. Chris says:

    Saturday, March 9, 2013 at 10:04 am

    Tina: “Fine with me. I guess the words “more likely” just don’t have any meaning for you.”

    Except that those were the two words I initially took issue with! Townhall claimed that the GAO said the healthcare law would “more likely” add to the deficit. But the GAO *never said that.* I don’t know why you’re having trouble understanding this. Townhall didn’t just say it was *their* opinion that the law would add to the deficit. They claimed that this was the *GAO’s* opinion. Do you not see how that’s dishonest? They projected their own opinion onto the GAO in order to make it seem like their opinion had more reliability than it actually did.

    “And isn’t it about time you started telling the truth about the many problems in this law and admit that it isn’t really working out as promised?”

    Most of the law still has not been implemented. And as far as “telling the truth,” I feel the need to point out that many of the claims you have forwarded about this law have been factually untrue. For instance, there was the claim that Obamacare banned doctors from recommending mammograms for women over 40. In reality, the law actually PAYS for women to have mammograms starting at 40 years old. So it does the exact opposite of what you claimed. Getting you to admit this was like pulling teeth, even though I showed you exactly where in the text of the law it makes this clear.

    You also still defend the “death panels” lie which has been rejected by civilized society.

    You made other claims in this article other than the one about the GAO, and they may be true. But the thing is, when a reader catches you saying something untrue, they are likely to tune out the rest. I don’t have time to research every single claim you make, but I do know from history that I can’t trust the information you post here, because so much of it has turned out to be false. See, when you refuse to research your claims before you make them, and then refuse to acknowledge when they have been proven false, you end up hurting your entire case.
17. Tina says:

    Saturday, March 9, 2013 at 11:31 am

    Chris: “I don’t know why you’re having trouble understanding this.”

    I’m not having any trouble at all understanding it. I got the joke. GAO “announced” two scenarios. One was kind to the President; the other reflected a more probable outcome in the opinion of many. Only one of them fit well with the snide or cynical joke.

    I don’t bend to your will, Chris because I find your need to disciple the adults around you repulsive.

    Our readers are quite capable of determining for themselves whether I have been terribly remiss or not. They are quite capable of reading and deciding meanings and truths for themselves.

    “For instance, there was the claim that Obamacare banned doctors from recommending mammograms for women over 40.”

    I NEVER said that. I can understand how you might read what I wrote and then decide that is what was said; you read through a progressive filter.

    “You also still defend the “death panels” lie which has been rejected by civilized society.”

    The arrogance of the radical progressive left is represented in these words. Dismissing the voices in opposition to an unelected body with such power is not evidence of “civilization” but rather slavish adherence to authoritarian ideology.

    “…when a reader catches you saying something untrue, they are likely to tune out the rest.”

    You assume to know the minds of others…this may be one of your biggest challenges in life, to allow that others can think and judge for themselves.

    “…so much of it has turned out to be false”

    That is a rather bold statement, Chris. I think you are talking through your hat!

    You and I disagree a lot. Why would you care about helping “my case”?

    Are you secretly in agreement about much of what I say and wishing I were a better communicator?

    Are you hoping to deliver a final blow that will sink my chances of reaching any potential converts?

    Are you simply a nit picking, busy body, authoritarian that thinks his place in life is to manage the speech and affairs of others? (That is the solid foundation upon which progressivism is built!)

    Most of what I cited in this article was informational and of use to people interested in what will happen to the quality of care and the cost of care and insurance under Obamacare. I hope our readers have found it more interesting than this silly, petty exchange.
18. Chris says:

    Saturday, March 9, 2013 at 2:02 pm

    Tina: “I’m not having any trouble at all understanding it. I got the joke. GAO “announced” two scenarios. One was kind to the President; the other reflected a more probable outcome in the opinion of many. Only one of them fit well with the snide or cynical joke.”

    OK, now I literally have no idea what you are talking about. What joke? Who was joking? The GAO certainly wasn’t. Are you now saying that Townhall was merely “joking” when they misrepresented the GAO report? And what about this blog, and the many other conservative blogs who forwarded the same misrepresentation? Was that all part of some big satirical meme that I didn’t understand? That you didn’t actually intend for people to believe that Townhall and the other conservative blogs were accurately reporting the GAO’s conclusions?

    This is one of the most bizarre defenses you’ve ever offered.

    “I NEVER said that. I can understand how you might read what I wrote and then decide that is what was said; you read through a progressive filter.”

    Tina, I had forgotten the exact details of our long, drawn-out mammogram conversation–the claim was actually that the law banned mammograms for women younger than 50 and older than 75–but you know what I meant.

    You did not originate the mammogram claim, but you consistently defended it, and at one point you did say that it was true. In comment #31 of this article, you accused me of lying after I posted proof that the doctor’s claims were false, saying:

    “YOU lied about the concerns of the doctor being false.”

    http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2012/08/17/woman-doc-speaks-out-on-b/

    So yes, you DID say that the doctor’s claim was correct when she claimed that mammograms for women under 50 were banned under Obamacare, even AFTER I posted proof from the law that this was wrong. Then you baselessly accused me of lying, even though you had provided no evidence to support this charge.

    You then tried to act like you had never explicitly endorsed the doctor’s claim, and claimed that she was talking about a “possible future scenario.” This simply wasn’t true; she was talking about current law.

    You also claimed that, as a doctor, she might have information about the healthcare law that the rest of us aren’t privy too. I’m not going to insult your intelligence by re-explaining how ridiculous that argument is.

    It took you until comment #76 to acknowledge that Dr. Vecchio’s mammogram claim was false. And even then, you said you had already done so, even though that was the first time you had conceded that she was wrong.

    You say that I am treating you like a child who needs to be lectured, but that is because you argue like a child. You ignore basic logic and evidence when it isn’t politically inconvenient. You refuse to concede even the smallest points. You think dishonesty is OK as long as it serves your political agenda. It doesn’t matter to you that any specific claim about Obama is wrong; it matters that Obama Must Be Stopped, so that justifies any negative claim you make about him, whether true or not.

    “The arrogance of the radical progressive left is represented in these words. Dismissing the voices in opposition to an unelected body with such power is not evidence of “civilization” but rather slavish adherence to authoritarian ideology.”

    Oppose it all you want! I have no desire to change your opinion on the law as a whole. All I ask is that you use valid, truthful arguments to do so. Is that so much to ask?

    “You and I disagree a lot. Why would you care about helping “my case”?”

    I care about the truth. I care about having a healthy political process, where both sides of any given issue are reasonably informed. When you constantly give your readers misinformation and then act like those who call you out are simply being oppressive bullies, it makes that a lot more difficult.
19. Chris says:

    Saturday, March 9, 2013 at 2:07 pm

    The thing is, Tina, I would love a real, healthy exchange about the positives and negatives of the healthcare law. I would love to be informed of things I don’t know. I think that would help me figure out what kind of alternative we really need for our healthcare system.

    But when you bring up so many negatives about the law that then turn out to…not really exist, in the real world…then it makes me feel like a healthy exchange of ideas is not something I’m going to get on this site. It also makes me think that a healthy exchange of ideas isn’t really one of your goals with this blog.
20. Tina says:

    Saturday, March 9, 2013 at 8:58 pm

    I’m sorry to hear that Chris but I have to say, you certainly have not appeared to be open to discussion or a “healthy exchange” about what might work for our healthcare.

    Calling attention to what many experts are saying, both in law and taxation as well as many people in the healthcare profession, is important in my opinion. It is also necessary because of the way this bill was written and passed.

    I don’t agree that I have posted “many negatives about the law that then turn out to…not really exist, in the real world…” I have endeavored to share things that people in the real world are deeply concerned about and I don’t think those concerns are unfounded.

    My ultimate goal is to defeat this very bad law for the sake of the country and everyone in it. I think the Democrat Party also deserves a big black eye for passing the law in secret and through coercion and bribes so if my efforts help to deliver a black eye it would not disappoint me. I see no reason to attempt to hide or temper my strongly held opinion and concerns.

    All efforts on my part to show how market solutions to the healthcare problems we face have been dismissed or derided by you in my memory. I have posted a number of links and I can’t recall any genuine interest on your part.

    I’d be happy to try again.
21. Tina says:

    Saturday, March 9, 2013 at 9:17 pm

    I apologize, I missed your earlier reply, Chris.

    “So yes, you DID say that the doctor’s claim was correct when she claimed that mammograms for women under 50 were banned under Obamacare, even AFTER I posted proof from the law that this was wrong. Then you baselessly accused me of lying, even though you had provided no evidence to support this charge. ”

    My arguments were in defense of the legal concerns of the doctor as she understood the law. Her concerns were shared by her lawyer who had advised her. Since that time others have expressed similar concerns regarding the way the law has given extraordinary power to an unelected board and the HHS Secretary. I continue to have the same concerns today. You may think the law reads differently. Welcome to the world.

    I have no interest in hashing through old discussions or your questions/accusations about my character. As I have said many times…I trust that the people who read our blog can determine for themselves what is accurate and what is not. I trust that they are quite capable of deciding what positions they will support and even whether or not I am to be trusted.
22. Tina says:

    Saturday, March 9, 2013 at 10:38 pm

    I just realized that the article in question is linked at the bottom of the page and so I did a quick read to review the discussion and determine my willingness to admit error.

    On reconsideration I am interested in defending my character; this is what I found:

    Quoting myself in comment #55:

    Chris was right about the provisions in the law that he cited; he failed , IMHO, to include other provisions that apply and that can and will be applied and have power to affect future outcomes.

    Here’s another attempt, comment #76, to clarify the argument I was making:

    Yes Chris I will say that I could find no specifics in the law that prevents her from ordering mammograms “to women under 50 and over 75″ today. In point of fact, I recall informing you that my arguments were not about mammograms in any case.

    (quoting Chris) “you seem to be implying that because Obamacare has many other problems…”

    Regarding the TownHall joke…you aren’t expected to understand when someone takes a potshot at the president for his “not one dime” remark.

    (reply) Uh, sorry Chris, it isn’t just “many other problems” that disturb the doctor. It is a clear threat of jail time and fines embedded in the law. It is the extreme power vested in unelected officials that bother the doctor. She is not alone!

    I think I was quite reasonable in attempting to make the point that the doctor has identifiable legal concerns. It should be noted that I made these comments after posting the portion of the ACA that had to do with fines and possible jail time for doctors.

    Although this part of the law was not the main point of Chris’s argument, it was part of the video in which Dr. Vecchio expresses her concerns about the law.

Comments are closed.