As I indicated in my post yesterday, Obamacare seems to be a Democratic fetish, “a course of action to which one has an excessive and irrational commitment,” http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/fetish.
This fetishism, in my post, “The Obamacare Fetish: Conclusion Jonathan Chait,” http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-obamacare-fetish-conclusion.html, prevents needed improvements to Obamacare regarding its many shortcomings for consumers by refusing to address real issues that face consumers.
Here, I address Michael Hiltzik’s commentary of 6/27/14, entitled, “Healthcare debate lacks factual arguments against Obamacare, http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-20140629-column.html#page=1.
Hard to believe there’s any intention of raising the quality of debate as Mr. Hiltzik implies by advocating “a debate free from racism, vituperation and defamation,” http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-20140629-column.html when his headline accuses, “Healthcare debate lacks factual arguments against Obamacare,” alleging that only those AGAINST Obamacare have lacked facts.
Certainly Mr. Hiltzik, absent a bizarre almost religious and magical belief in Obamacare (fetish) would recognize that his headline should have replaced the word “against” with “about,” becoming the more accurate, “Healthcare debate lacks factual arguments ABOUT Obamacare.”
So, right off the bat Mr. Hiltzik instead of identifying a real issue from both sides, lack of facts, plunges right into accusing anyone who criticizes Obamacare of lacking facts. Unfortunately, this neither elevates the potential debate nor reflects the reality that BOTH sides have lacked facts. Looking to have it both ways: I can lack facts but you can’t. Hmm. Trying to have it both ways, holding Republicans to a facts standard without including Democrats.
So, we’re alerted Mr. Hiltzik is looking at a back-door way to criticize Republicans, support Democrats, and discount anyone who disagrees with his view as a liar. Hopefully his article improves. Spoiler alert, it doesn’t.
Mr. Hiltzik is talking about how he wants anyone who disagrees with him to behave rather than establishing a code of conduct for discussion of healthcare…Having it both ways, separate rules for him. Sort of like Obamacare zealot Harry Reid exempting staffers from having to experience Obamacare, (see, “Harry Reid: Hypocrite Headliner,” http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_4.html.
Back to Mr. Hiltzik’s new standards of “Factual arguments.” Mr. Hiltzik advocates a healthcare debate “free from racism, vituperation and defamation,” http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-20140629-column.html. (Vituperation is bitter and abusive language, https://www.google.com/#q=vituperation).
Mr. Hiltzik handily omits how average people respond to being lied to, which ultimately is what Obamacare stands for for many Americans. In other words, when someone or many someones relentlessly stick to a point of view in spite of any amount of evidence to the contrary, things are bound to get heated, much as he experienced with hostile responses to one of his posts where he insists, “I didn’t get it,” http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-20140629-column.html.
Therefore, while I’m not quite sure what Mr. Hiltzik refers to when he asks for debate free of racism, I would ask him to include in his list an allegiance to our best information available when debating an issue, in other words, stop lying. It is frustrating for people to have to read endless lies designed to influence consumers to believe untruth.
Yet, a debate free of lies does not seem to be on Mr. Hiltzik’s agenda. Perhaps it’s not possible once you’ve become as I term them, an Obama fetishist. So, to avoid falling into the “vituperation” category, I’ll specifically address the types of lies I believe have fueled a less reasonable debate about healthcare and healthcare reform.
Lies that twist the conclusions of studies cited in support of specific arguments such as I discussed in my series of articles concerning Jonathan Chait. Lies by omissions, such as the inclusion of the individual mandate in the PPACA, which was never part of the marketing of Obamacare as noted 2012 when Andrew Cline noted, “Obama's strong objection to the government forcing people to buy insurance in order to get to universal coverage vanished six months into his presidency,” “How Obama Broke His Promise on Individual Mandates,” 6/29/12, Andrew Cline, “The Atlantic,” http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/how-obama-broke-his-promise-on-individual-mandates/259183/.
And then there are the out-and-out lies, most recently the If-you-like-your-plan-you-can-keep-it debacle, (for numerous examples of this lie you can see, http://www.politifact.com/obama-like-health-care-keep/). There are also the lies of what was promised to the American people such as savings of $2,500 a year (just look this one up in hundreds of locations).
While Mr. Hiltzik may choose to identify twisting conclusions of studies and surveys, incomplete information and downright untruths as something besides lies, these examples clearly fall within the dictionary definition of “LIE” as, “Something intended or serving to convey a false impression,” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie.
IT IS A HALF-TRUTH TO CRITICIZE THE LACK OF FACTUAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST OBAMACARE WITHOUT DOING THE SAME CONCERNING UNTRUE ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OBAMACARE…That’s having it both ways.
Mr. Hiltzik next references his post about how Obamacare is working and whined that he got an “unexplained outpouring of angry, vulgar and bitter emails.” Again, let’s start with YOUR language Mr. Hiltzik.
On April 28, 2014 you described Michael Cannon’s criticism of Obamacare as, “The lamest,” M. Hiltzik, 4/28/14, “Found: The lamest anti-Obamacare column of all (thus far),” http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-lamest-antiobamacare-column-20140428-column.html.
In that same article you said, “…we think we’ve found the DOPIEST entry in this competitive field. Tip your hat to Michael F. Cannon.” You sarcastically undervalued another publication saying, “…the “Los Angeles Register (whatever that is).” You concluded and put words in Michael Cannon’s mouth that Michael Cannon was of the “…disreputable camp of conservatives who advise Americans not to sign up for Obamacare because there’s no downside to going without coverage.” You attacked Michael Cannon’s article as “OFF THE RAILS.” You described him as “GHOULISH.” Oh yes, Mr. Hiltzik, this is YOU.
I go through your antics in my 6/9/14 post, “Michael Hiltzik V. Michael Cannon: FIGHT!” http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2014/06/michael-hiltzik-v-michael-cannon-fight.html. Let’s see, vituperation...dopiest, disreputable, lamest. Sounds pretty vituperative to me. Defamatory? Ghoulish, “…why would a truly rational person take their advice?” “Here are the ways the Cato Institute proposes for you to SCAM (emphasis added) Obamacare,” http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-lamest-antiobamacare-column-20140428-column.html. Sounds defamatory for me.
So much for debate free of vituperation and defamation. Looks like another case of the pot calling the kettle black, (and NO that’s not racist simply because it uses the word black, since I know you’ll be tempted to allege the same. “The phrase simply comes from a cooking pot and a tea kettle. In the 1600s, both cooking utensils would have been cast and black in color. The phrase means that an attribute is being pointed out by someone who has a similar attribute,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3APot_calling_the_kettle_black).
MR. HILTZIK ONLY WANTS STANDARDS FREE OF DEFAMATION AND VITUPERATION FOR OTHER PEOPLE, hmm sounds like he’s trying to have it both ways.
Mr. Hiltzik plugs popular features of Obamacare, you know the ones we were informed of and supported before we found out about the REST OF THE LAW, and admits that Obamacare “gets bad marks.” Yes sir, that is true. Because Americans are not dumb.
A Gallup article entitled, “Few Americans Say Healthcare Law has Helped Them,” by Frank Newport discloses that, “Most Americans say the law has had no impact on their healthcare situation, while those who do perceive an effect are more likely to say it has hurt them rather than helped them,” http://www.gallup.com/poll/170756/few-americans-say-healthcare-law-helped.aspx.
It wouldn’t be a stretch for someone who wasn’t a true believer to figure out that since Obamacare only enrolled 8.1 million individuals and of that at best and most recent estimates only 57 percent of those were new enrollees, fewer than five million, that the rest of the US paying for this entitlement and facing higher expenses without the benefit of the PPACA Obamabucks would likely NOT think the law was so good. But for true believers like M. Hiltzik the answer is obvious, people don't like Obamacare because of Fox News, http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-20140629-column.html.
Mr. Hiltzik also contemptuously refers to the “’death panel’ lie…which held that government committees would demand euthanasia of the sick and elderly.” Whether or not the death panel description was hyperbolic, much like Mr. Hiltzik’s allegations that Michael Cannon was advising people to SCAM Obamacare might have been hyperbolic, http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-lamest-antiobamacare-column-20140428-column.html, the allegations are based on the PPACA and THERE IS PROVISION FOR THE INDEPENDENT PAYMENT ADVISORY BOARD in the Affordable Care Act.
The most draconian features of those provisions regarding the Independent Advisory Board have not come into effect yet. What is the purpose in deliberately trying to ignore an issue that is of concern to consumers though inaccurately labeled both in terms of euthanasia and death panel?
I’ve discussed the provisions of the PPACA, 3403 and 10320 modifying the Social Security Act 1899A which creates the Board, provides it with powers that are triggered if Medicare budgets are too high for a particular year, and requires the Secretary of HHS to implement the recommendations for reduced costs including proposals, according to section 1899A (c)(2)(A)(iv) that include “as appropriate, the proposal shall include recommendations to reduce Medicare payments under parts C and D, such as reductions in direct subsidy payments to Medicare Advantage and prescription drug plans…”
I provide in-depth consideration of the death panel allegation in my post, “The Mean-ing of America Debate 2012: Insurance Doesn’t Advise on Treatment, It Just Decides on What it Pays for,” 10/4/2012, http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-mean-ing-of-america-debate-2012.html.
Though the panel currently exists, it won’t reach its ultimate level of power to control what gets paid for under Medicare until 2020, as PROVIDED IN THE PPACA, which is why the President and others can now confidently scoff and laugh and MISLEAD the public of any validity of the death panel allegation.
However it’s fetishism for Obamacare that leads to this dense inability to glean meaning from what is alleged and to discuss the provisions of the Independent Payment Advisory Board perhaps protecting Medicare-covered individuals BEFORE 2020.
While it’s true that insurance companies have never been allowed to DECIDE what treatment is allowed or disallowed for a patient, they have ALWAYS been allowed to decide whether they’ll pay for it or not.
Certainly Mr. Hiltzik, our Obamacare booster of the day knows that having the ability to pay for healthcare is frequently critical for individuals seeking to obtain healthcare. Otherwise why support expanding health insurance coverage if not to increase ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE by providing people with more ways to get insured?
So, by denying coverage, contributions from the insurance company or by Medicare (which is what the Independent Payment Advisory Board will have sovereignty over in the event its powers are triggered), in paying for specific medical treatments or medications, according to the reasoning of the PPACA that denies care, right? We wouldn't need health insurance if people could pay for needed healthcare without it.
Therefore any denial of payment reduces the ability of individuals to obtain medical care. This is the bedrock reasoning of Obamacare. Denial of coverage reduces access to and affordability of care, thus reducing an individual's ability to obtain that care.
The denial of care means that more people won’t get needed care so whoever decides to NOT COVER something does so with the knowledge that some people will be barred from a particular needed treatment or medication, which would jeopardize their health and which ABSOLUTELY is part of the powers of the Independent Payment Advisory Board.
Now go back and read the provisions of the PPACA cited in the 10/4/2012 post, “The Mean-ing of America Debate 2012: Insurance Doesn’t Advise on Treatment, It Just Decides on What it Pays for,” http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-mean-ing-of-america-debate-2012.html.
Mr. Hiltzik then goes on to assert essentially the same things that Jonathan Chait does in his 6/22/2014 article, http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/06/republicans-finally-admit-why-they-hate-the-aca.html , that I discussed in three earlier posts and that apply here, http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2014/06/truth-by-technicality-analysis-of.html, http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2014/06/styles-in-truth-eg-jonathan-chait.html, http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-obamacare-fetish-conclusion.html.
Mr. Hiltzik ultimately resorts to his own partisan view of criticism of Obamacare that Republicans and others don’t like it because, “…the ACA mainly benefits the poor.” But naturally, this is not true. First of all many of the nation’s poorest are not helped AT ALL by this legislation.
Remember, only a little more than half the states have expanded Medicaid expansion provided under Obamacare and therefore the POOREST Americans in many states are not helped by the law. At best Mr. Hiltzik could only argue that the PPACA COULD benefit the poorest.
Also,the PPACA creates an entitlement through Obamabucks for individuals earning between $45,000 individual and $94,000 for a family four, which even Jonathan Chait indicates aren’t the “poor,” “Republicans Finally Admit Why They Really Hate Obamacare,” http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/06/republicans-finally-admit-why-they-hate-the-aca.html.
So, the noble democrats can hardly argue that criticism of Obamacare stems from a desire to further disadvantage the poor.
It should be noted that Mr. Hiltzik also notes that unlike him, “Most Americans entered the ACA era without understanding how health insurance works,” http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-20140629-column.html.
I hope he’s including himself in that group. But since likely he is not including himself among the Non-understanding masses to whom he refers, it would seem that he would be more scrupulous about what he writes rather than relying on that assumed ignorance to spread his own Obama “religious” beliefs.
He spoke about insurance premiums going up and how people couldn’t know whether that was a lot or a little in the days before Obamacare, “There was no way to know…”(http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-20140629-column.html)
Excuse me, have you seen the site http://kff.org/interactive/premiums-and-worker-contributions/? There, in an article entitled, Premiums and Worker Contributions Among Workers Covered by Employer-Sponsored Coverage, 1999-2013, the article begins, “Since 1999 the Employer Health Benefits Survey has documented trends in the employer-sponsored health insurance market.”
There’s also a graph of “Premiums and Worker Contributions Among Workers Covered by Employer-Sponsored Coverage, 1999-2013,” http://kff.org/interactive/premiums-and-worker-contributions/ that shows a graph that shows the unbroken trend of going up in terms of costs right through 2013.
Like Jonathan Chait, Mr. Hiltzik tries to reinforce notions of mean and/or crazy Republicans as THE reason that Americans dislike Obamacare rather than addressing anything substantial regarding the law. He can’t see that lying to the American people and that blind loyalty to a man-written law could be deemed just as mean and just as crazy as anything else that’s been said.
Ultimately, Mr. Hiltzik’s article is a great argument for each side to do some soul-searching and finally focus on issues that are impacting the American people about Obamacare.
