Skip to main content
Home2012 Articles2011 Articles2010 Articles2009 Articles2008 Articles2007 Articles
 
 2009 Articles 
Monday, July 27 2009

As it's becoming increasingly clear this presidency thing isn't going to work out for him, Barack Obama should feel relieved that he has proven to have the skills necessary to forge a successful follow-up career as a snake oil salesman.  His most recent Obamacare press conference demonstrated that when it comes to far-fetched guarantees of miracles at bargain-basement prices, President Obama is in a league of his own. 

 

The editors of National Review magazine pointed out that during the course of this hour long sales pitch, Obama "said essentially all of the uninsured would be covered, the insured could keep their existing coverage, the quality of care would rise, waste and fraud would be slashed, the deficit would decline, and no one would have to pay a price for all this except a few millionaires."  One must wonder if while he spoke, Vice President Biden was out looking for Pete's Dragon to capture and compound into the remedies necessary to make all this come to pass.

 

But since these snake oil deals never seem to work out very well for the customers, perhaps we citizens should take a careful look at the fine print on Mr. Obama's bill.  The current version of Obamacare working its way through the House of Representatives is a 1,018 page monstrosity that no lawmaker has actually read, and that they're assuming no citizen will take the time to read either.  Fortunately, you only wade through to page 16 to find out things aren't exactly as advertised.

 

Under the section entitled, "Limitation on New Enrollment," it states in black and white: "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of Obamacare's enactment.

 

Plain English: those of you who have private coverage, you can keep it - but you can't change it.  And if you decide to leave your current job to start your own business, you won't be able to purchase individual plans from private carriers.  Page 16 forbids it.

 

Those of us who oppose socialism have been warning for some time that when a private company is forced to compete with the government, the private company will never survive.  Unlike private companies who need to make profits in order to operate, government does not.  Government can charge a ridiculously cheap amount for their insurance option and offset the difference with taxpayer money.  Since private companies don't have that ability and must keep their prices elevated to the point where they will make profit, a government option will eventually destroy the entire private market.  Why would employers pay more to a private company for coverage when they can take the government option and pay less?

 

As the nonpartisan Lewin Group study revealed and Investor's Business Daily reported, "120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program."  This gutting of the customer base of private insurance carriers would cause the market to "fizzle out altogether."

 

So why is that a bad thing?  People would be covered, right?  Sure, but as the president has often acknowledged, in order to cut costs, the government will have to limit access to certain procedures, surgeries, and treatment (recall that macabre moment when the president told a woman that under his plan her 105 year old mother would have received pain pills instead of a life-saving pacemaker).  The government will determine whether you're young, healthy, and responsible enough to be worth the expense.  And if you don't want a government bureaucrat making those determinations for you, can you opt out of the government plan and purchase your own private insurance?  Nope.  Page 16 forbids it.

 

Some have suggested that if things got too bad in a government run healthcare system, private companies would start popping up again and offering an alternative.  There's only one problem with that.  Page 16 forbids "any new policies [from being] written after the public option becomes law."

 

When you consider that the Obamacare header over page 16 reads "Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage," you start to get an idea about the amount of deception that is taking place.

 

The president has admitted to being unsure of the details of the House version of Obamacare, yet has urged members to rush its passage regardless.  Why?  Because snake oil salesmen are never really concerned with the well-being of their customers.  They distort, manipulate, mislead, and make outlandish promises...right before they pack up their trailer with your money and head down the road.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 01:07 am   |  Permalink   |  143 Comments  |  Email
Comments:
I typed a very long entry, addressing several of the points you made in your--I use this next word "liberally", as it were--"article", but I then realized at that point I would be debating you, something I have no real interest in doing. You see, when you argue with a fool, people from a distance cannot tell who is who. Sometimes, I do not know whether I should feel ashamed of you, or embarrassed for you. The fact that you get this rubbish published only proves that you are the true snake oil salesman. I can only hope you fully enjoy your life of fighting progress and the evolution of our country and species.
Posted by WhyBother? on 07/27/2009 05:12:42
Ah yes, the old, "I wrote a really long response but just decided not to post it" line. A classic, indeed. I agree with you, WhyBother?, it was much more effective for you to simply call names and accuse Mr. Heck of being unintelligent. I think that's going to sell a lot of people, especially with your powerful insight and pinpoint analysis of details. And people wonder why Obama and his revolution is faltering...
Posted by Observer on 07/27/2009 14:20:57
Quick question for those who disagree with Mr. Heck: how do you explain President Obama's remarks that are clearly so contradictory to the provisions of the actual bill?
Posted by ChucksChants on 07/28/2009 07:35:25
I haven't been following the healthcare ado so I can't comment one way or the other. To switch gears though, I am genuinely surprised to learn Pete is a birther - this judging from the item on yesterday's front page. Pete, do you sincirely believe the president was not born in Hawaii, and if so, why? I don't understand why this paranoid delusion is suddenly making a comeback. Has their hatred of Obama finally pushed the Right off the deep end, or are the 9-11 "truthers" just looking for a new cause?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 07/28/2009 16:21:38
Come on, NGav...show some responsibility and do some research before you make accusations. If you haven't listened to the segment and my comments, don't jump to conclusions thus making a fool of yourself. I expect more from you.
Posted by peterheck on 07/28/2009 17:15:54
Since when did research matter to birthers? It's research that led me to believe what I do. However, let's say reality were different and Obama somehow wasn't a US citizen - what would you expect at this point? The election is over, Obama was sworn in and has been president for some time now. Personally, I think birthers are either (A) dishonest, desperate folks who will trash Obama for any/every reason, or (B) bitter people who can't accept Obama's victory and have managed to convince themselves it's illegitimate. That the GOP is playing along will help the Dems in the long run - what better way to discredit yourself then support this insanity?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 07/29/2009 11:43:41
One of my relatives believes Obama doesn't know how many states are in the US. Me: How can you believe this? Her: He said there were 56 states one time. Me: Why you do you think he didn't just misspeak? Her: Well, because he paused beforehand. (She said this with a straight face and complete conviction.) Imagine, a senator not knowing how many other senators he worked with! Amazingly, this woman is educated and bright. But she dislikes black people and Obama was probably not an exception. I guess the lesson here is that hatred is blinding. If you hate a person or a group enough, you will believe ANYTHING nasty about them, and these beliefs will further compound the ill will. It's a vicious circle of ignorance and hate.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 07/29/2009 12:14:17
Interesting that McCain's citizenship was comparably questionable (born in the Panama canal zone), and yet he was not subjected to nearly the same scrutiny as Obama. The difference, I think, is race. Because B. Hussein Obama doesn't "look or sound American" to some people, it is easy for them to believe he isn't. This isn't your motivation but it is for a lot of people including my relative. That being said, I'll hunt down your comments and try to find out what how you can be possibly find yourself among these people.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 07/29/2009 12:23:34
Peter, On your point to NGav about conducting responsible research prior to tossing out accusations, your little opinion piece flagrantly distorts the Lewin study. Similar to the advice you gave NGav: if you haven't read the analysis, Peter, don't jump to conclusions and thus make a fool of yourself. Have you read the Lewin study, Peter? It appears more likely that you are thoughtlessly reciting something that has been spoon-fed to you. I expect more from YOU, Peter. Even if you're going to play partisanship behind a thinly veiled shroud of pseudo-journalism, you still owe it to the public to make enough of an effort to get the basic facts right.
Posted by JamesThurston on 07/29/2009 17:35:07
Most things that Peter hawks including being a "birther", can be refuted by anyone doing than 10 minutes of research. Fact: Multiple courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have rejected these claims. State officials in Hawaii released a copy of Obama's birth certificate and have repeatedly confirmed its authenticity. Birther: A racist sore loser who can't deal with having a black president so they make up absurd conspiracy theories about Barack Obama's birth certificate. These nutjobs actually believe that there has been a conspiracy going back 48 years to fake Barack Obama's birth certificate. Apparently they had a crystal ball and knew that this black child (born in the days of segregation) would someday run for President.
Posted by Lew on 07/30/2009 08:15:44
Here we go: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Posted by N. Gavelis on 07/30/2009 13:47:01
*sigh* Why didn't you listen to me, NGav? I meant, why don't you listen to my comments before you accuse me of being a "birther." But you didn't. Instead you actually went further by writing all these posts of information we are all already aware of. I'm not a "birther," man. If you would have listened to what I said as I instructed you to, I CLEARLY stated that I believe the man was born in Hawaii and my frustration comes in that HE WON'T JUST PUT ALL THIS TO REST BY SHOWING US THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE! I want to know why he's spending thousands of dollars to avoid it when most all of us believe he is a citizen! Ugh, NGav.
Posted by peterheck on 07/30/2009 20:08:34
Ah, sweet, sweet James. Perhaps I should ask you if YOU'VE read the Lewin study and if so, what about my conclusion regarding its findings is inaccurate? I'm anxious to know how my "pseudo-journalism" has misled the masses...particularly given the passing reference I made to the study is a rather small paragraph. Did the study not find that the private market would "fizzle out altogether?" Do tell, my friend.
Posted by peterheck on 07/30/2009 20:12:59
For the last couple of weeks, we've all been laughing heartily at the wacky antics of the "birthers" -- the far-right goofballs who claim Barack Obama wasn't really born in Hawaii and therefore the job of president goes to the runner-up, former Miss California Carrie Prejean. And yet, every week, the chorus of conservatives demanding to see his birth certificate grows. It's like they're the Cambridge police, Obama's in his house -- the White House -- and they need to see some ID. And there's nothing anyone can do to convince these folks. You could hand them, in person, the original birth certificate and have a video of Obama emerging from the womb with Don Ho singing in the background ... and they still wouldn't believe
Posted by Bill Maher on 08/01/2009 00:38:21
Yeah, that's great Bill. But the fact remains that NO ONE HAS SEEN THE FRIGGIN BIRTH CERTIFICATE. If anyone had, and if Obama wasn't spending hundreds of thousands to keep it hidden and to not release his early education forms, I don't think there would be that many "birthers" out there.
Posted by Bill Maher's an idiot on 08/01/2009 01:16:18
Birthers and Obamabots alike need to read this...by far the best researched, most articulately explained analysis of the birth certificate "controversy" I have seen, period: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmJhMzlmZWFhOTQ3YjUxMDE2YWY4ZDMzZjZlYTVmZmU=&w=MA== NGav, if you're curious as to my true thoughts on the issue, this column sums it up better than I could. It says what needs sayin.
Posted by peterheck on 08/01/2009 01:23:13
This is almost as absurd as the relentless claims that President Bush justified the Iraq war by calling Hussein an immanent threat. He never made that claim, but his opponents on the left kept insisting that this was the justification. Can we please have a little sanity here? Do most CONSERVATIVES think that President Obama was born an American citizen? Yes. Would we like him to end the insanity by supplying the actual birth certificate? Yes. I don't think this is asking too much. The Constitution would agree.
Posted by Asburystrider on 08/01/2009 11:59:16
Vintage NGav: "If you hate a person or a group enough, you will believe ANYTHING nasty about them..." Perhaps that's why you can only think of two reasons people mention the "birth certificate controversy". Is it possible that some of the folks that are concerned about this are not racist or bitter? Could it be that some are simply curious? It amazes me how you are able to judge the hearts of so many people you don't even know. Could it be that you are guilty of blind hatred? I'm just going by what you say. I can't read your heart, but your words are quite convicting.
Posted by vcamatt on 08/01/2009 18:14:10
One more point worth mentioning. The truth of the matter is that this is such a fabricated non-issue. Look at who's continuing to revisit the issue (even in this thread). It's not conservatives. Just ask Eric Cantor. http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/eric-cantor-rips-chris-matthews-msnbc-huffpo-liberal-bloggers-for-pushing-birther-story/
Posted by Asburystrider on 08/01/2009 18:44:25
I notice a bit of a quirk with N Gavelis; to wit, in former threads he has made the [sometimes justified] complaint that others have begun little rabbit trails (ie, other topics) that he did not begin from some of his comments. In spite of acting as if this frustrates him, he has no problem interjecting his own line of thought into an article and/or discussion that has nothing to do with what he is thinking. BTW, I did my research: I read the above thread of comments. Nothing in the original article or first few comments about so-called birthers until N. Gavelis decided that whatever was on his mind was more important.
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/02/2009 16:06:05
Asburystrider writes, "Look at who's continuing to revisit the issue (even in this thread). It's not conservatives." It is fascinating how a few lib trolls get together, fabricate some accusations at folks they cannot otherwise compete with ideologically, and then malign their character on the basis of their own straw-men. There are far fewer "conspiracy theories" surrounding the Obama administration than there have been concerning the Bush administration.
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/02/2009 16:15:49
For those of you who have clearly indicated a high regard for research, I ask again: how do you explain President Obama's remarks that are clearly so contradictory to the provisions of the actual bill? My explanation is that: either (a) President Obama is ignorant of what is actually contained in HR 3200 or (b) President Obama is intentionally deceiving America's citizens. Either scenario is unsettling.
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/02/2009 16:29:57
"(2) PLAIN LANGUAGE.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘plain language'' means language that the intended audience, including individuals with limited English proficiency, can readily understand and use because that language is clean, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices of plain language writing." (HR 3200, p. 39)
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/02/2009 17:03:54
"(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage'' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/02/2009 17:04:42
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1. (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/02/2009 17:05:39
(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1." (HR 3200, p. 16) Yep, gotta love the PLAIN Language clause.
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/02/2009 17:06:10
Awesome, you're not a birther. That's all I needed to know. If you were I'd have to stop reading your blog. Just curious, Pete: what do you think of the birther movement?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 08/04/2009 12:32:28
Hi Matt. Delusions are rooted in emotion, not evidence. This is how birthers manage to withstand the surplus of evidence against their lost cause. You say I'm mindreading by pointing out the bitterness and racism that underlies the birther movement, but it doesn't take a mind-reader to identify these things. It cannot be denied that millions of people are bitter about Obama's victory, and it cannot be denied that racists don't want a black man in the white house. We have these people to thank for the birther madness, and Dems will have these people to thank when they completely discredit the GOP. Don't underestimate the number of racist idiots in this country.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 08/04/2009 12:52:41
Being a so-called "birther" carries with it no implication of racist bigotry. Those who are pursuing/supporting this line of investigation may or may not have "racist" issues. The convenience of Mr. Obama's heritage is that any supporter can impose accusations of bigotry upon anyone opposing his ideology and resultant policies. For myself, there are many, many members of so-called racial minorities who I would support in any election because they are truthful, honest, insightful people. Mr. Obama is not dangerous because he is a "minority;" he is dangerous because he proposes policy that leads to tyranny.
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/05/2009 07:06:53
Peter, My apologies for the delayed response. Yes. You could say I have read and know a bit about the Lewin study (more on that later). Although, your response indicates that you indeed are not familiar with it at all. Have you read the study Peter??? You are either one of two things in this situation, Peter: 1.) grossly underinformed on the issue, or 2.) deliberately distorting the facts to prove your point. So which is it, Peter? Is this a case of dishonesty or simply being uninformed? Your reference to the passage was much more than passing. It was the evidence you attempted to corroborate your entire argument.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/05/2009 13:49:09
Here is where you should review: Yes, the Lewin study does include ONE estimate of 120 million people shifting from private to public plans... BUT, THAT IS NOT THE ENTIRE STORY. The study presents impact analyses under SEVERAL DIFFERENT HYPORTHETICAL SCENARIOS. The 120 million is an estimate of only one scenario that is NOT EVEN WHAT PRESIDENT OBAMA SUPPORTS. The analysis gets a bit into the weeds of health care economics... but essentially, the 120 million would shift if the public plan option were available to the entire health insurance market and reimbursed providers at Medicare rates.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/05/2009 13:50:42
But guess what, Peter? President Obama is not suggesting that we make the public plan option available to the entire market at Medicare reimbursement levels. President Obama supports making the public plan option open only to small businesses, individuals and the self-employed. The Lewin analysis indicates if that is the case and private payer reimbursement levels are used, only 10 million people would shift. That's quite a difference between the number you, ahem, "reported".
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/05/2009 13:51:30
The truth is Peter (and ChucksChants), you have proven that you are in over your head when discussing health care reform. For you to even suggest that HR 3200 is "Obamacare" again reveals either your lack of knowledge or the deception you promote. There are three versions of health care reform currently being discussed, all with varying likelihood of passage. Obama has revealed his broad preferences for what he wants included, but has left the task of shaping the reform to Congress. The actual substance of the reform bill that will get to the President's desk is yet to be determined.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/05/2009 13:52:39
It's far too early to tell what form "Obamacare" will actually take and will continue to be until we are able to review a conference product that reconciles the Senate and House versions (not to mention, that the two Senate versions will need reconciled first). If I were a betting man, I would look for "Obamacare" to most likely resemble the Senate Finance Committee version (see the Gang of Six for more info), which will be, by far, the most bipartisan version. Peter, I've indicated this to you before: your hyperpartisan misinformation is providing nothing constructive to public debate. Please do better.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/05/2009 13:53:35
Thanks for the posts, James. Just to make sure I've got this right: when I briefly mentioned something that WAS, IN FACT, IN the Lewin Study as an example of a consequence that could come from Obamacare if enacted in the House form, that was "hyperpartisan misinformation?" Remember James, Obama urged the House to pass its version. The person who argues, "Oh don't worry about what the bill says...they'll probably work that part out in the conference later on" is the person disseminating misinformation to the masses. But that's just me.
Posted by peterheck on 08/05/2009 17:24:03
Oh, and as much as I sincerely appreciate your admonition, James, if what you posted was the extent of your evidence for "hyperpartisan misinformation," I think your rebuke is born primarily out a disdain for my politics...not a protective concern for the malleable masses. But thanks.
Posted by peterheck on 08/05/2009 17:26:21
Why must you be so obtuse on this issue, Peter? Please allow me to explain it more clearly: The scenario you cited WAS ABSOLUTELY NOT AN EXAMPLE OF A CONSEQUENCE THAT WOULD COME FROM OBAMACARE. That is exactly my point; it is why you are distorting the truth and recklessly promoting misinformation.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/05/2009 22:18:27
The scenario you cited (where 120 million people shift) is nowhere in any of the three current bills. You are pulling it out of left field. As I clearly stated earlier, that outcome may occur when the public plan option is available to everyone in the market and reimburses at Medicare rates. Please find me the bill that proposes such a scenario. It does not exist! The secondary source you cherrypicked the Lewin quote from did not have the facts straight. All of this would have been clear, had you bothered to READ THE LEWIN REPORT that you cited in the first place. Instead, you took the intellectually lazy way out. You decided to carelessly regurgitate something you found online without putting it under any objective scrutiny.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/05/2009 22:19:39
A couple of responses to your personal accusations: 1.) This example is not the extent of evidence that demonstrates your hyperpartisanship and your attempts to dress up misleading information as fact. In fact, the vast amount of misrepresentations you espouse is, at times, overwhelming to reasonable folks.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/05/2009 22:22:01
2.) My criticism is not born out of any disdain towards your political beliefs. I value and respect a conservative perspective that is dignified, respectful and TRUTHFUL. Unfortunately, your opinions are mired by a zealous adherence to extremist ideology that leads you to oversimplify complex issues and childishly mischaracterize those with whom you disagree. The universal theme of your show is to outlandishly generalize and ridicule (if not demonize) those who do not share your beliefs.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/05/2009 22:22:43
That said, from our brief interactions, I believe you to be a good hearted and well-meaning individual. As such, I challenge you to distance yourself from promoting partisan inaccuracies and use your pulpit to engage citizens in earnest debate that is constructive in addressing social problems. not focused on dividing the community by our differences for your own self-promotion.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/05/2009 22:24:04
So, James, you must be a frequent listener to Peter's show?
Posted by Observer on 08/06/2009 13:09:38
James, I must admit that I laughed when I read your accusation that Peter and Chuck are in "over their heads" on this healthcare issue. Might I ask, James, are you in the healthcare field? Will your profession be immediately and dangerously impacted by any version of these bills should they go into effect? A couple points to make...
Posted by Dr. Todd on 08/06/2009 13:13:37
1. The reason Peter is so popular locally is because he offers conservative viewpoints in a dignified and respectful way. I challenge you to articulate a moment when Peter was anything but towards a political adversary. As to Observer's question, if you are going to profer such a judgment about Peter being intentionally divisive just to promote himself over the good of the community, NO, you are not a frequent listener of his program. I remember, in particular Peter's conversations with American Atheists, Freedom From Religion, and Americans United. You would not find a more respectful approach anywhere. While you may believe that your school marmish rebuke of Peter is convincing, I assure you, it is quite transparent.
Posted by Dr. Todd on 08/06/2009 13:18:58
2. You write of Lewin, "the 120 million would shift if the public plan option were available to the entire health insurance market and reimbursed providers at Medicare rates." Then you go on to suggest Obama is not proposing that, while conceding that Obama isn't sure what he's proposing. The reality is that logically extrapolating from the current state of Medicare that the reimbursement rates would actually be HIGHER in a public option is not difficult to do at all. Meaning, the consequence would be far greater than 120 million. Several studies have indicated that a public "option" would result in no option at all...it would lead directly to single payer.
Posted by Dr. Todd on 08/06/2009 13:22:24
Now...who was it who wrote a column that described how a public option would actually lead directly to a universal system if we allowed the camel's nose under the tent? Oh, that's right...Peter did. And who is not taking issue with that logical conclusion or disproving its rationality? Yes, it's James. James would rather focus in on a minute detail of the Lewin study, put words in Peter's mouth, accuse him of hyperpartisan misinformation, and distort the nature of the healthcare debate to deflect attention away from Peter's main (and accurate) point: that this is a recipe for disaster.
Posted by Dr. Todd on 08/06/2009 13:24:35
And you can take that, James, from someone who is undoubtedly more intertwined in this healthcare issue than you are. Unfair to draw that conclusion without knowing you? Not any more unfair than for you to conclude that Peter's intentions are self-promotion or divisiveness without being a regular listener.
Posted by Dr. Todd on 08/06/2009 13:27:26
Hey James, thanks again for your posts...and for your, ahem, kind words (tempered with a dose of insults). I do understand what you're saying, and I hate that my misrepresentation of the Lewin study by lifting a quote from IBD outside of context has caused you to (in my opinion) miss the forest for the trees. Let me ask you this question: if we could take that paragraph out, would you find fault with the notion that introducing a "public option" would inevitably lead to the private market fizzling out altogether? That, after all, was my point - one that is supported by Barney Frank, Jan Schakowsky, and Barack Obama himself. Do you think suggesting such is misinformation?
Posted by peterheck on 08/06/2009 13:31:47
Peter, Doc: Okay. I have much to address, not much time and even less patience. But first a few words to Doc: The foolishness of your presumptiveness is only exceeded by your hubris. To both of your questions: Yes. I am indeed in the healthcare industry and my profession will be directly impacted by health care reform. For you to presuppose that you are more intertwined in the healthcare issue (and therefore must be intellectually superior) is unfounded, speculative, arrogant and just plain daft. It merely demonstrates evidence of your inability to challenge your own suppositions.
Posted by James Thurston on 08/07/2009 19:36:44
Amongst Doc's squall of hubris and condescension, I noticed these words: "Now...who was it who wrote a column that described how a public option would actually lead directly to a universal system if we allowed the camel's nose under the tent? Oh, that's right...Peter did. And who is not taking issue with that logical conclusion or disproving its rationality? Yes, it's James. James would rather focus in on a minute detail of the Lewin study, put words in Peter's mouth, accuse him of hyperpartisan misinformation, and distort the nature of the healthcare debate to deflect attention away from Peter's main (and accurate) point: that this is a recipe for disaster."
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/07/2009 19:37:32
Very cute, Doc. Wholly inaccurate, but cute. Now, stay with me please. I'm afraid we may be venturing into uncharted territory for the both you and Peter here. We're going to scrutinize the validity of an argument on its own merits: The phrase "logical conclusion" jumped out at me right away. I love logic! So let's visit the principles of elementary logic and see how well this *cough* "logical conclusion" stands up to a simple validity test.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/07/2009 19:38:48
As we should all be able to agree, the validity of an argument exists if and only if the truth of the argument's premise entails the truth of its conclusion. In other words, the truth of your premise determines the truth of your conclusion. If your premise is untrue, then it is impossible for your conclusion to be true; therefore, making your argument invalid.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/07/2009 19:39:32
Why do you suppose I focused so sharply on Peter's point about the Lewin study? (which, btw, Peter, thank you for acknowledging your mistake on your representation of the study.) Was I simply focusing on a "minute detail", as Doc put it? Or, perhaps Peter was correct when he asserted that I, "missed the forest for the trees". On the contrary, it was quite deliberate and for good reason. Let's review the argument Peter made in this column:
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/07/2009 19:40:12
Premise: The Lewin study demonstrates that Obamacare will cause 120 million people to be crowded out of the private market. Inference: If 120 million people are crowded out of the private market, then the private market will "fizzle out" altogether and the government plan will be the only option left. Conclusion: Obamacare will cause 120 million people to be crowded out and the private market will cease to exist; therefore, Obamacare will lead to a single-payer government plan as the only option. *Sky begins to fall on all freedom-loving Americans*
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/07/2009 19:40:51
Basic deductive reasoning teaches that the fallacy of Peter's argument lies in its UNTRUE premise. Therefore, Peter's entire argument is invalid. The Lewin study didn't say that Obamacare will crowd out 120 million people. The Lewin study said that a completely different scenario (one not being proposed at all) will crowd out 120 million people. The Lewin study DOES say that the public option President Obama supports (where the public plan is open to individuals, small businesses and the self-employed) only leads to between 10-20 million people shifting. This will NOT cause the evaporation of private markets.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/07/2009 19:42:03
So to answer your question, Peter: NO if you were to remove that paragraph from your column, I would not accept that the public option would inevitably lead to the private market fizzling out altogether. However, if you were to do such a thing, your column would be in an even sadder state. It would simply be an argument devoid of a premise.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/07/2009 19:42:40
Now we can get into issues of health insurance market inefficiencies (adverse selection, producer-led demand, incomplete markets); sustainability problems with the deteriorating employer-sponsored model; and how over 50% of the uninsured exist in the individual and small group markets, or other economic problems that necessitate health care reform, but that will just be "missing the forest for the trees", won't it Peter? J Who needs objective analysis, anchored in accepted economic theory when you can just cherrypick from other right-wing op-ed pieces and attempt to present it as your own original thought?
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/07/2009 19:43:16
Doc, please allow me to address a few of the mischaracterizations you threw my way: 1. On your defense of Peter's "dignified" and "respectful" conduct: while I do not doubt the Peter is a nice guy, his actions speak contrary to your defense. Simply look at the outlandish way in which he conflates terms like "liberal", "socialist" and "fascist"; or the childish way in which he accuses liberals of Nazism (see his front page on 8/7/09. Please save the Pelosi bologna. If it was wrong when she said it, then it's wrong when Peter said it. I thought we learned that two wrongs don't make a right in grade school).
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/07/2009 19:43:56
Some of the other gems that have caught my attention were when he accused liberals of mirroring Khrushchev, or the way he accused the entire Muslim religion of being anti-freedom, or how he accused liberals of being racist this week (btw, Who was it that defended segregation? Someone may need to fact check Peter's claim. The signature at the bottom of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not a Conservative. I'm pretty sure that Liberals lost southern Conservative support for 50 years after they ended segregation. It just so happens, I have noticed that many of Peter's fans are southern Conservatives. Hmmm.) The list goes on and on.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/07/2009 19:44:29
On a couple of your technical points, Doc: 2. You indicated that I wrote something about what Obama proposed, "while conceding that Obama wasn't sure what he was proposing." I, in fact, made no such concession. In fact, it is the opposite. In case it was lost in your fog of presuppositions, I wrote exactly what Obama has proposed: "But guess what, Peter? President Obama is not suggesting that we make the public plan option available to the entire market at Medicare reimbursement levels. President Obama supports making the public plan option open only to small businesses, individuals and the self-employed."
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/07/2009 19:45:10
3. Doc, you also wrote, "The reality is that logically extrapolating from the current state of Medicare that the reimbursement rates would actually be HIGHER in a public option is not difficult to do at all. Meaning, the consequence would be far greater than 120 million. Several studies have indicated that a public "option" would result in no option at all...it would lead directly to single payer." Really? You're saying that the public option would reimburse providers at HIGHER rates than Medicare? Well, that's great news! We're in agreement there.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/07/2009 19:45:50
Oh, but one problem with your conclusion, if the public option reimbursement rates are higher than Medicare reimbursement rates, then the consequence would be a shift much LOWER than 120 million. Care to disagree? If so, you would be directly at odds with the conclusions of both the Lewin and Congressional Budget Offices analyses. And oh yes, I noticed you also invoked the "several studies indicate." routine. Interesting. Care to elaborate? Were those studies produced by non-partisan sources? Or from places like Hertage, CATO, or AEM, who each have clear political axes to grind and personal benefit to gain from defeating any health care reform?
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/07/2009 19:46:23
And, Doc: you can take THAT from someone who undoubtedly has a highly personal and professional stake in this health care reform initiative and has unquestionably researched the issue in a much more even-handed, critical manner than you have.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/07/2009 19:46:59
Peter, Please don't misunderstand. I was not insulting you. As I recall from an exchange with you last year, you went into some song and dance about using appropriate labels. Are you not hyperpartisan? Are you not the one who accused John McCain of being a quasi-socialist? Are you not the one who claims that moderate Republicans are just "Republicans In Name Only"?
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/07/2009 19:47:30
And, you are not promoting misinformation? Would you really like to stand by the assertion that you do not twist the facts to promote an extreme, one-sided worldview? Your misuse of the Lewin study proves otherwise. As you can see, I was simply taking a page out of your playbook. If you are going to say, with a straight face, that President Obama is both a socialist and a fascist, then you are indeed promoting hyperpartisan misinformation, pure and simple. It's not an insult, just a label. Have a nice weekend.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/07/2009 19:48:09
Fortunately I need only point back to your own words to discredit the vast majority of what you said regarding my column. You stated, "If your premise is untrue, then it is impossible for your conclusion to be true; therefore, making your argument invalid." Lovely. Then you declared my premise to be: "The Lewin study demonstrates that Obamacare will cause 120 million people to be crowded out of the private market." That, unfortunately for you (given the time you spent arguing against this premise) was not my premise.
Posted by peterheck on 08/08/2009 13:28:36
My premise was that Page 16 of the House ObamaCare bill limits a lot of freedom for those who would accept a public option. I revealed that throughout the course of column. I also articulated my belief that this "public option" is a camel nose under the tent.a trojan horse. See Barney Frank for justification of that point. Since you entirely misstated my premise, by your own words, "it is impossible for your conclusion to be true; therefore, making your argument invalid."
Posted by peterheck on 08/08/2009 13:29:07
Further, though I'm not overly concerned with your suggestions of me being childish or disrespectful, you should accumulate something more convincing than gross mischaracterizations and oversimplified assessments of my commentary. Example: The Nazi party platform and Democrat party platform have some frightening similarities. Are you actually going to try to deny that? I find it interesting you would conflate my acknowledgement of that reality and what Ms. Pelosi suggested. She accused political opponents of being Nazis without any evidence. I said repeatedly my political opponents are NOT Nazis, but given the fact that their platform is so similar, perhaps they shouldn't bring up the Nazi argument. That was "wrong" of me?
Posted by peterheck on 08/08/2009 13:30:04
It would take entirely far more time than I am willing to waste to address each of your ridiculous oversimplifications of my previous arguments. If you believe that I think all liberals are racists as you suggest, that all those wearing the Muslim name hate freedom as you suggest, that I think all liberals are fascists and/or socialists as you suggest than you are either: 1. Not a listener, or 2. So blindly hyperpartisan that you are willing to distort web headers and catch phrases as the extent of my position.
Posted by peterheck on 08/08/2009 13:30:35
In terms of your direct questions: 1. Are you not hyperpartisan? Hmmm, well I am very convicted and committed to Christianity and to traditional morality and conservatism. So if by that term you mean a fierce proponent of my beliefs, yes. If you mean something else, you'll have to define the term first. 2. Are you not the one who accused John McCain of being a quasi-socialist? Actually no, I don't remember doing that. I certainly didn't in this column.
Posted by peterheck on 08/08/2009 13:31:10
3. Are you not the one who claims that moderate Republicans are just "RINO"s? Well if by "moderate" you mean liberal, than yes I am. Again, it would be helpful if you would define your terms. I typically regard those that vote with the Democrat Party on a regular basis as being RINOs. You know, the ones that switch parties when the wind blows? 4. Are you promoting misinformation? No. I work very hard to be honest about the facts and then give my take on the direction we should go in response to those facts. When I do make a mistake, I make it a habit to be honest about it and correct the record.
Posted by peterheck on 08/08/2009 13:31:43
5. Would you really like to stand by the assertion that you do not twist the facts to promote an extreme, one-sided worldview? Yes, see the previous question about the facts stuff. But what in the world do you mean "an extreme, one-sided worldview?" As opposed to a "multi-sided worldview?!" A worldview is the perspective or lens through which you evaluate facts and events. That doesn't mean you can't see or empathize from another's perspective. It just means that you've chosen the worldview you will operate from. So, I guess my answer would be: my worldview is as one-sided as yours.and yes, you probably view mine as extreme given your own!
Posted by peterheck on 08/08/2009 13:32:12
6. The Lewin Study "proof" of fact twisting. Actually what the Lewin paragraph does is reveal a sloppy research job on a supplemental point that wasn't my premise, was used only to bolster the argument I was making, and could easily be left out. Not saying that I shouldn't be more careful.just that it was a mistake. But since you've decided that this was the central premise around which my entire public character has been built and is defined, I'm guessing you will see things differently. Pretty sad, but pretty typical based on what I've seen of you.
Posted by peterheck on 08/08/2009 13:32:45
7. Will I say with a straight face that Obama is both a socialist and a fascist? My face is very straight right now (just take my word for it): Yes, Obama supports socialist policies. That's a no-brainer to anyone who will simply compare the policies he supports and the tenants of socialism...
Posted by peterheck on 08/08/2009 13:33:38
As far as fascist, that's a little hairer primarily because there are so many different definitions of fascism floating around. That goes back to the label thing that evidently you didn't pick up on last year when we talked about it. I'm fine with using labels if you can defend why you are using that label. So until we have established what definition of fascism you're choosing, I'm not comfortable using that label. But I am comfortable after all of this to say, "You are one hyperpartisan dude, James."
Posted by peterheck on 08/08/2009 13:34:00
Nope, sorry. I know more than you.
Posted by Dr. Todd on 08/08/2009 17:25:20
Pete, your earlier point that James has a political axe to grind with you and that is the rationale behind his faux concern was revealed to be accurate in the following comment he made: "from places like Hertage, CATO, or AEM, who each have clear political axes to grind and personal benefit to gain from defeating any health care reform" Disregarding the content of research based on personal differences with the researchers. VERY SCHOLASTIC, JAMES! I believe the word used for folks like you is "FRAUD."
Posted by Observer on 08/08/2009 17:27:25
Regardless of whether or not the Lewin Study was applied correctly or not becomes an almost moot point in light of the direct comments made by significant Democrat leadership (aka, President Obama, Rep. Barney Frank, et al) categroically declaring their goal of establishing a "single payer" health insurance system. Regardless of what form a final bill takes, they have made it clear that their goal is the complete consolidation of Americans' healthcare needs under government control.
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/12/2009 09:37:27
It seems rather strange that one (James Thurston) who proclaims such a high regard for the use and application of logic would stoop to ridicule me and others for making reference to HR 3200. There may be other proposals on the table, but this is the bill that is being proposed in Congress right now. It is the bill that President Obama was encouraging the House to pass before their resource. What else are we supposed to discuss?
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/12/2009 09:42:12
James, would you please explain your own logic behind [apparently] supporting government-directed healthcare? Do you support everything that is being proposed or only certain parts? What improvement does this type of healthcare plan over existing systems? Do you believe that the Democrats' plan[s] will result in limiting the liberties of American citizens? If so, are you OK with that? If not, how does imposing certain requirements on providers and end users not impose on our freedoms of choice? You are quite talented at ridiculing measured, logical thoughts from those not in your camp, so now that we know that, provide some rationale of your own.
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/12/2009 09:49:58
"(b) REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFIED HEALTH BENE2 FITS PLANS.—On or after the first day of Y1, a health benefits plan shall not be a qualified health benefits plan under this division unless the plan meets the applicable requirements of the following subtitles for the type of plan and plan year involved: (1) Subtitle B (relating to affordable coverage). (2) Subtitle C (relating to essential benefits). (3) Subtitle D (relating to consumer protection)." (HR3200, p. 15, line 1-10)
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/12/2009 15:54:02
At this point, the bill makes clear that the end result will likely be the demise of private health insurance coverage. Instead of private citizens being able to contract with insurers for the coverage they believe cost effective & adequate for them, they will be forced to purchase coverage with mandated government requirements. Just as mandated safety standards raises the cost of the automobile, the cost of private health insurance will become too burdensome for any rational company to provide.
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/12/2009 15:57:32
Real live case in point. I qualify for group health insurance coverage with a very small qualifying group. The median & average age of this group is rather high. If I opt for this insurance, I take it as-is; no policy alterations are allowed; everyone receives the same coverage. The result? Policy premiums in the $2,000 PER MONTH range! However, I have the freedom to opt out and take better coverage for me as well as to establish health savings accounts and other options, thus reducing the cost to my place of employment as well as providing me adequate coverage.
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/12/2009 16:03:24
Given the provisions of HR3200 or any other monstrosity coined to date, this option will likely go away simply because all of the requirements (see subtitle C) will not be met. Instead of affordable, adequate coverage tailored for my needs, I and numerous others will be herded into the government "single payer" system devised primarily by progressive/liberals & Democrats. Is there anything in these bills that makes you think otherwise?
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/12/2009 16:07:12
James writes, "If you are going to say, with a straight face, that President Obama is both a socialist and a fascist, then you are indeed promoting hyperpartisan misinformation, pure and simple." We can say that with a straight face because socialism and fascism form two sides of the same coin. Both can exist only in the environment of a collectivist, totalitarian state, pure and simple.
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/12/2009 16:12:19
I'll respond to each of you in reverse order in which you commented. . 1.) Chuck, You indicated that HR 3200, "was the bill being proposed in Congress right now. What else are we supposed to discuss?" HR 3200 is one of five bills being discussed in Congress right now. It is not the only one. That was the point I made. If you are pursuing an informed perspective, try looking at all the other bills holistically. Then, examine the current make-up of Congress and consider which coalitions/ alliances control the votes to pass health reform. It will then become apparent to you that HR 3200, as it stands, simply does not have the legs to become law.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 16:56:53
My original point was that it is too early to tell what the health reform bill that makes it to the President's desk will entail because, as anyone well versed in Congressional procedure will tell you, conference reconciliation is where the definite structure of a health care reform bill will develop. We have not reached that point yet.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 16:57:25
Regarding my personal opinion on health care reform, I have conducted extensive empirical research on health care reform. I place a very strong emphasis on the application of economic principles to health care markets. The first thing to understand about health care markets is that economists can agree that they are highly inefficient, are inherently noncompetitive (due to their oligopolistic market structure) and often lead to market failure.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 16:57:52
Now market failure is tolerable when we are talking about the allocation of gizmos and gadgets, but when we get into health care services that people's lives depend upon, we must not tolerate market failure. This fundamental concept is what necessitates government reform. That said, there are some components of the health reform proposals that I am a strong supporter of and others that need more refinement. I'm afraid the structure of this forum limits my ability to expand much further. If you have a more direct question about my thoughts on a specific component of a reform proposal, I will do my best to oblige.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 16:58:24
Finally, on your point about socialism and fascism, please research the issue before making such an absurd comment. Fascism stands first and foremost to promote nationalism, strong military power and usually the supremacy of a particular group. For example, the Nazi party was strongly opposed to both the Social Democratic Party of Germany (Liberals) as well as the Communist Party of Germany (Socialists). Most fascist political parties exist on the far right of the political spectrum. History demonstrates this by the fact that the Nazi party's political alliances were formed with right wing factions.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 16:58:49
The preeminent voice of American Nazism and Neo-Fascism, George Lincoln Rockwell, was heavily influenced by Joe McCarthy and his hard line anti-communist rhetoric. To apply your perverted meaning of those terms to either American political party indicates your utter foolishness. However, if your point was that political extremism on either side of the spectrum is destructive, I support the essence of your claim; although, you should have that discussion with Peter, a self-admitted extreme conservative.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 16:59:19
2.) Observer, As I stated before, I have no political axe to grind with Peter. The nature of this disagreement is not political; it is based on his lack of journalistic integrity. My criticism of Heritage, Cato and AEM is not rooted in personal differences with the "researchers". It is rooted in the shoddy quality of their work. I apply the same criticism to the liberal organizations like the Center for American Progress, Economic Policy Institute, etc. Truly independent, objective research should not start with a conclusion that promotes a highly partisan objective, only to selectively pick evidence that corroborates that objective and selectively omit evidence that refutes such objectives.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 16:59:49
My criticism of Peter on health care is rooted in his disregard for objective economic realities. The fallacy of your critique, Observer, is rooted in your attempt to predetermine my motivation for criticizing Peter's editorial. The world is not always black vs. white, us vs. them, Republican vs. Democrat. Simply because I disagree with Peter in this instance does not mean that I am doing it on partisan grounds, or that I have a "political axe to grind with him".
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:00:15
I find similar sources like The Huffington Post, Daily Kos and Rachel Maddow just as destructive as Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Ann Coulter. They are ALL contributing to the deteriorating level of public discourse in the United States and inhibiting progress on critical issues like health care reform (including Peter, on a much much smaller scale).
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:00:38
I am frustrated when people like Peter—who have no background in health care economics, econometrics, regression analysis or simulation modeling— simply collect opinion pieces and quasi-research from blatantly partisan sources and then attempt to disguise such misinformation as empirical evidence. What a charade!
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:01:12
Your username indicates you are a health care provider. As a self-proclaimed expert on health care policy, perhaps you could explain the phenomenon of Supplier-Induced Demand; its impact on consumer health care spending and to what extent the size of the income effect is to identifying and understanding SID behavior? Further, what are the implications of SID on pareto efficiency? What can physicians do to minimize the adverse consequences of SID? The answer you find may indicate why health-care reform might pit the best interests of health-care consumers (the vast majority of Americans) against the best interests of providers like yourself (a small, affluent group). It also explains a key driver of runaway health care inflation.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:02:09
3.) Ah, Peter, It really is a shame that you are unable to identify the structure your own argument. You see, if you remove the Lewin study comments from your argument, then there is no evidence to support your Trojan horse assertion. If 120 people are not crowded out of the private market, then what is the driving factor that makes the public plan a Trojan horse? The point of your column was indeed that the public option would crowd out the private market and lead to a government controlled system.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:02:50
Do you still disagree? If so, you are contradicting yourself: ".would you find fault with the notion that introducing a "public option" would inevitably lead to the private market fizzling out altogether? That, after all, was my point."
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:03:31
You may attempt to deny the correct premise of your argument, but doing so only makes you look obstinate and incapable of admitting that your column does not accurately convey the facts of the issue.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:03:57
For the sake of finding some common ground, I can agree with you that a poorly designed public option (that would be one offered to the entire market at Medicare reimbursement rates) could be a Trojan horse for single-payer. But has I have repeatedly said, President Obama is not proposing a system designed in such a way. There are certainly not enough votes in Congress to pass it.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:04:24
You see, a well-designed public option would use competitive market forces to reign in the inflated prices imperfect health insurance markets set premium rates at. Obama has proposed using free-market principles to inject more competition into a highly non-competitive, imperfect oligopolistic market structure. As basic economics teach us, increased competition lowers prices. The same will be true with a well-designed public option.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:04:47
Further, the public option will insure those that the private market will not. Another inefficiency with our broken health insurance markets is incomplete markets. That is, there is demand for a good or service that is not being met. Many sick people in the individual and small-group health insurance markets want and need insurance. That is, demand for the goods or services exist.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:05:28
Unfortunately, the private market has a demonstrated inability of covering them. The economic reason is simple: there are not enough low-risk individuals in the pool to subsidize the cost of one high-risk individual, so the high risk individual is denied coverage or priced out of the market. And contrary to conservative hyperbole, these are mostly employed, hard working US citizens. They just have the misfortune of working for a small business or are self-employed.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:05:51
Now Peter, as a Christian, do you not share my moral objection to leaving these people without the medicine and treatment they need to live healthy lives? It is not blind partisanship that has lead me to this conclusion, but rather a critical review of economic realities, anchored by the moral social values my faith has taught me.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:06:48
Now on to the direct questions: 1.) Are you not hyperpartisan? Your Response: "So if by that term you mean a fierce proponent of my beliefs, yes." Thank you, I appreciate that you can admit you are indeed hyperpartisan. As I said, I did not mean that as an insult, but as a label.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:07:27
2.) Are you not the one who accused John McCain of being a quasi-socialist? Your Response: "Actually no, I don't remember doing that. I certainly didn't in this column." Really, Peter? You didn't call John McCain a quasi-socialist, huh? Are you sure?: "When the Democrats offer an anti-human rights socialist, and Republicans counter with a moderately anti-human rights quasi-socialist, conservatives should oppose both." -Peter Heck, Preventing the Extinction of Republicans, August 02, 2009
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:08:06
3.) Are you not the one who claims that moderate Republicans are just "RINO"s? Your Response: "Well if by "moderate" you mean liberal, than yes I am." Again, thank you for admitting that you are indeed hyperpartisan. See, it's not sufficient for someone to share some of your beliefs. Rather, they must share ALL of your beliefs, or you will ridicule them as well.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:08:35
4.) Are you not promoting misinformation? Your Response: "No. I work very hard to be honest about the facts and then give my take on the direction we should go in response to those facts. When I do make a mistake, I make it a habit to be honest about it and correct the record." Please review your response to Question 2 (another example of how misleading you can be. when asked if you called John McCain a quasi-socialist, you unequivocally said, "No"). As we have covered, you misreported the facts of the Lewin study—a central premise of your Trojan horse argument.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:09:53
Here is yet another example of you misleading your readers. In your column, you said: "The current version of Obamacare working its way through the House of Representatives is a 1,018 page monstrosity that no lawmaker has actually read, and that they're assuming no citizen will take the time to read either."
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:11:03
Now Peter, again this is not exactly truthful. It's not THE current version. it's A current version. Earlier, I indicated there were three versions. Actually, there are five different versions, each of them with differing components still needing to be reconciled in numerous committee conferences. Did you indicate that? No. You made it appear as if there is only one version of Obamacare and that this single version was going to be enacted into law.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:11:27
As I mentioned, and you scoffed at, we are still a long way from knowing what the actual bill that Congress will agree upon actually entails. Anyone who knows anything about congressional procedure (apparently, this does not include you) knows that the conference reconciliation process is where a bill takes its true shape.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:11:51
5.) Would you really like to stand by the assertion that you do not twist the facts to promote an extreme, one-sided worldview? Your Response: ".what in the world do you mean "an extreme, one-sided worldview?" As opposed to a "multi-sided worldview?!" A worldview is the perspective or lens through which you evaluate facts and events. That doesn't mean you can't see or empathize from another's perspective. It just means that you've chosen the worldview you will operate from. So, I guess my answer would be: my worldview is as one-sided as yours.and yes, you probably view mine as extreme given your own!"
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:12:31
Actually Peter, a worldview is a collection of beliefs about life held by an individual. It can be informed by opposing points of view, especially viewpoints that might not fit squarely under one political party's platform. Tell me, Peter, is there a single Democratic policy that you do support? Or, are they ALL evil? Again, I did not mean this as an insult, but as a label. On the political spectrum, your beliefs are to the extreme right. You acknowledge that and the views you express in your columns and radio show support it. And Peter, it's not my opinion that determines you are extreme; it is the comparison of your opinions to the opinions of the majority of Americans.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:12:55
6. The Lewin Study "proof" of fact twisting. Your Response: "Actually what the Lewin paragraph does is reveal a sloppy research job on a supplemental point that wasn't my premise, was used only to bolster the argument I was making, and could easily be left out. Not saying that I shouldn't be more careful.just that it was a mistake. But since you've decided that this was the central premise around which my entire public character has been built and is defined, I'm guessing you will see things differently. Pretty sad, but pretty typical based on what I've seen of you."
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:13:28
Agreed. The way you reported the Lewin study was both sloppy and incorrect. Although, this was indeed the premise for your Trojan horse argument. If you insist on disagreeing, please lay out a premise, taken from your column, that provides evidence of your conclusion that the public plan will cause the private market to fizzle out. This cannot be done without twisting the original intent of your statements.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:13:52
Peter, you are exaggerating when you say that I've, "decided this was the central premise around which my entire public character has been built and is defined." Nowhere did I say anything about what has built or defined your character. Again Peter, you are twisting the facts.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:14:19
7.) Will you say with a straight face that Obama is both a socialist and a fascist? Your Response: "My face is very straight right now (just take my word for it): Yes, Obama supports socialist policies. That's a no-brainer to anyone who will simply compare the policies he supports and the tenants of socialism... As far as fascist, that's a little hairer primarily because there are so many different definitions of fascism floating around... But I am comfortable after all of this to say, "You are one hyperpartisan dude, James."
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:15:39
This is simply another example of how you deteriorate public discourse. If you cannot unequivocally say that President Obama is not a socialist or fascist (nor was President Bush), there is no possible way to take you seriously.
Posted by JamesThurstonj on 08/16/2009 17:16:14
Finally, on your accusation of my hyperpartisanship: beyond the fact that you seem to resort to schoolyard insults when challenged (the whole "no, I'm not. you are" line of argument we all undoubtedly used in first grade), please provide evidence of my hyperpartisanship. Simply because I disagree with you, does not automatically mean it is on partisan grounds. As I mentioned earlier, my criticism of your column has been grounded in my frustration of your fundamental inability to get basic facts straight, something you owe to your listeners and readers.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:16:39
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. I wanted to address what you called my gross mischaracterizations and oversimplified assessments of your commentary. I really don't have time to get into all of it, but I would like to address two of them:
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:17:29
1.) You said, "The Nazi party platform and Democrat party platform have some frightening similarities." Again, invoking Nazism simply demonstrates your immaturity. As I explained to Chuck, the Nazi party platform stood first and foremost to promote German nationalism, strong military power and the supremacy of the Arian race. Yes, I will clearly deny that the Democratic party platform resembles the Nazi party platform. Until you can do the same, you are entirely undeserving of being taken seriously. It was immature when Pelosi said it and it is immature when you say. Please grow up.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:17:57
2.) Then you hit with this whopper: "If you believe that I think all liberals are racists as you suggest. than you are either: 1. Not a listener, or 2. So blindly hyperpartisan that you are willing to distort web headers and catch phrases as the extent of my position."
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:18:25
So you're gonna tell me that you did not say Democrats were racist, huh? (and nowhere did I claim that you said ALL liberals were racist. There you go twisting the facts again): "First, demonstrating to African-Americans that the Democrats have been the Party of slavery, segregation, and now socialism, would be a good start. The tactics have changed, but the left's objective has remained consistent: hold blacks down in a state of dependence, thereby perpetuating white liberal power." -Peter Heck, Preventing the Extinction of Republicans, August 02, 2009
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:18:57
As a self proclaimed "student and teacher of history", please do more than a cursory review of that one. Are you REALLY gonna try to pin slavery and segregation on Liberalism? First, go look at an electoral map of the election of 1860, then compare it to an electoral map of 2004. What's striking is that many of the same states that supported Bush are the same ones that opposed Lincoln. How could this be? Well it's simple. Led by Strom Thurmond in 1964, who was angered by the Civil Rights Act, many Dixicrats (those Southern racists who defended slavery and segregation) left the Democratic party and joined the Republican party. They have stayed there ever since, thus the strong support of the GOP throughout the South.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:19:20
So the descendants of very same people who opposed Abraham Lincoln on the slavery issue and defended segregation are now solidly in the Republican Party (Just look at the praise Trent Lott had for Strom Thurmond). Now don't misunderstand. I am not saying all Republicans are racist. I am saying that the racist coalition that was in the Democratic Party left for the GOP back in the 60's because of Civil Rights and they're still there. So, not all Republicans are racist, but some sure are. Until Republicans can figure out how to reconcile the facts of history with the African American community, you really don't stand a chance earning their support.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:19:52
So Peter, it was not a mischaracterization or oversimplified assessment when I said those things. They were taken from your very own words.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/16/2009 17:20:15
You are not a listener, and not very strong at deduction either James. The column where I asserted that conservatives should pass on quasi-socialists when they are nominated by Republicans was not referring to John McCain. If you were a listener, or actually concerned with getting your facts straight before making accusations, you would have noted that I supported John McCain, thus destroying your assertion. Oops. Gosh, maybe I should spend 38 posts explaining why your distortion of facts and my opinions to suit your own ideological aims is contemptuous and deserving of public rebuke?
Posted by peterheck on 08/16/2009 22:29:21
So here's a question, James: do you ever just wake up in the middle of the night and say, "Holy cow, I'm sure full of a lot of crap?" Just wonderin.
Posted by Dr. Todd on 08/16/2009 22:53:56
Doc, Unfortunately, a portion of my earlier comments directed to you was not fully posted. Allow me to present them again: The insolence of your hubris shines. Your attempts to engage me in a juvenile, ahem, *urination* contest are comedic. I'll indulge you.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/17/2009 00:27:53
Your username indicates you are a health care provider. As a self-proclaimed expert on health care policy, perhaps you could explain the phenomenon of Supplier-Induced Demand; its impact on consumer health care spending and to what extent the size of the income effect is to identifying and understanding SID behavior? Further, what are the implications of SID on pareto efficiency? What can physicians do to minimize the adverse consequences of SID? The answer you find may indicate why health-care reform might pit the best interests of health-care consumers (the vast majority of Americans) against the best interests of providers like yourself (a small, affluent group). It also explains a key driver of runaway health care inflation.
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/17/2009 00:28:24
But alas, though I appreciate you taking time to lay all this out, I have no desire to get into a urination match with you that will not be fruitful. It is beyond ridiculous for a guy who brings up Trent Lott's Thurmond comments to condemn others for "distortion." Or a guy who accuses me of calling McCain a "quasi-socialist" and encouraging conservatives not to vote for him - when I voted for McCain - to lecture others on not jumping to conclusions. Or a guy who tells people to "grow up" to accuse others of schoolyard tactics. Or most importantly a guy who tells me repeatedly that I'm not worthy of being taken seriously when he takes the time to post 69 times on this column alone. I dare say you take me more seriously than most, James.
Posted by peterheck on 08/17/2009 00:31:32
Peter, I obviously listen to your show and read your columns... although, it's mainly for humor, how can any thoughtful person take your comments seriously? How is bringing up Lott's Thurmond comments a distortion? Do you disagree that Democratic support of Civil Rights is what pushed the Thurmond and many Dixiecrats to the GOP? Do you disagree that Lott supported Thurmond?
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/17/2009 00:41:11
Also, it's obvious you supported McCain in the general, given the irrational hatred of President Obama you demonstrate in every show. McCain was your only option. Although, from listening to your show, it is clear that you did not deem McCain a true conservative. And please, don not pretend your "quasi-socialist" reference wasn't directed at McCain. You're not fooling anyone. C'mon man, you supported Alan Keyes for crying out loud!
Posted by JamesThurston on 08/17/2009 00:49:02
I think James is getting a little big for his britches! It's actually quite entertaining. And for the record, James: I didn't think Heck was talking about McCain. It wouldn't make any sense. If Heck believes he is a true conservative, and says true conservatives should not vote for quasi-socialists, but then Heck voted for McCain...uh, do the math. But again, your irrational hatred of Peter Heck is leading you to make some pretty asinine comments that we're all enjoying. So keep it up, buddy!
Posted by Observer on 08/17/2009 13:43:36
Heck, as for you, though I am enjoying James' little temper tantrum here, I think your best course of action is to shake the dust from your sandals and move on. You're in a position to influence people and folks who don't agree with you are going to pick at every little thing and distort it like crazy to try to make you mad. A word to the wise: don't give in and let it get to you. James is a gnat. Brush him off and keep on, keepin' on, brother! If you tried to respond to every point he tried to make, you'd get nothing else done. Regard James as what he is: an obsessed fan.
Posted by Observer on 08/17/2009 13:47:09
James, prior to this congressional recess, the president indicated that he wanted a healthcare bill from Congress to him to sign into law. Given the rushed nature of such a request, what bill would the president now have if he had his way?
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/17/2009 18:32:32
Additionally, regardless of which bill you want to refer to (in fact, please specify the bills that are being considered, please, so that some background research can commence), the principle concerns are about the nature of the ideology of government rule over healthcare. I seriously doubt that the policies to which most of the concerns are being raised are going to differ much from bill to bill.
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/17/2009 18:35:52
Nevertheless, are you suggesting that American citizens refrain from expressing approval or disapproval until some "final" bill is known to exist? Is this your suggestion for muzzling dissent?
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/17/2009 18:37:54
James writes, "Now Peter, as a Christian, do you not share my moral objection to leaving these people without the medicine and treatment they need to live healthy lives? It is not blind partisanship that has lead me to this conclusion, but rather a critical review of economic realities, anchored by the moral social values my faith has taught me." Now this provides some serious thought, indeed. What you indicate is that some legislation increasing government regulation and/or control of healthcare is necessary for moral reasons.
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/17/2009 18:43:17
You indicate, in reality, that morality not only can be, but must be, legislated. You indicate that his morality is rooted in a faith, and even though you do not specify your own faith, you do question that of Peter's, namely Christianity. So if Peter, or anyone else, were to actually declare support for *A* government healthcare bill because the morality shaped and driven by his Christian faith compels this, then is he not attempting to establish a theocracy? Since when is any Christian allowed to impose his/her morals on another citizen in contemporary America?
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/17/2009 18:52:19
Additionally, if your rationale for favoring government-run healthcare is the moral principle you stated, then a logical conclusion is that you reject any form of rationing that would define some citizens as "non-productive" and leave them out of the healthcare system. If this is the case, then you also have to reject the current claims made by proponents of *A* bill that the legislation's purpose is to reduce and contain healthcare costs. Who is, after all, determining who receives and does not receive access to certain treatments? Who makes those moral determinations?
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/17/2009 18:59:44
James, please provide the differences for the ordinary citizen living under the governments of Hitler and Stalin. If you were a Jew... persecuted. If you attemped political dissent... persecuted. If you did not fit the leader's concept of ideal citizen... marginalized, if not persecuted. Both maintained control through secret police & terror squads. Both sought to expand their boundaries through military aggression. Both appealed to a virtual unthinking allegiance - the Germans fought for der Vaterland & the Russians for Mother Russia. Same totalitarian coin, pure & simple.
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/18/2009 10:14:34
Hey, James, if professionals in the healthcare sector are speaking out about healthcare issues, should we afford them the opportunity to be heard?
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/18/2009 13:43:27

Post comment
Name
 *
Email Address

Message
(max 750 characters)
*
* Required Fields
Note: All comments are subject to approval. Your comment will not appear until it has been approved.

    common sense makes a comeback
    site designed by Keith Parker   --  sign up for Peter Heck Mailing List here