Why Are Republican Members Of Congress Lying About Health Care Reform? Let's Try Judy Biggert
>
Reagan opposed Medicare; Biggert opposes a public option
Yesterday I asked and tried answering the question Why Are Republican Members Of Congress Lying About Health Care Reform? I wasn't satisfied that I had actually gotten to the bottom of it. And then I recalled a passage in one of my favorite books of this year, Rick Perlstein's phenomenal Nixonland.
In this particular segment he's talking about Ronald Reagan's successful run against California Governor Pat Brown. Reagan was a spectacular liar for his entire career; in fact he wouldn't have had a career but for all the lies and distortions. He's a model for Republican demagogues to this day. The backdrop is the African-American riots in Watts and other major cities, situations that played right into Reagan's hands, who could never find enough social ills to blame on welfare.
The Los Angeles Times did an investigation: they could only find abuses in four-tenths of 1 percent of relief cases and editorialized that for the sins of these 180 families, and $31,960 lost from the state treasury, "innocent children whose birthright was poverty" were being put in risk of starvation. "If there is a better answer, it won't come from demagogic moralizing."
Reagan was the preeminent demagogic moralizer-- and the Time endorsed him in the general election nonetheless. In the agricultural San Joaquin Valley, speaking atop a mammoth harvesting machine, after loosening up the crowd with quips ("They say God is dead. Wel-l-l-l-l, he isn't. We just can't talk about him in the schoolroom"), he started talking about what his handlers had told him to talk about, farm policy. His audience shifted in their seats, bored. He started talking about how anyone coming to California could start drawing a welfare check within twenty-one days. That was false: only those who could prove five years of California residence in the last nine could get welfare, and then only after twenty-one days. It delivered him the crowd nonetheless. "Everything he says is America," a young woman told a reporter. An old lady chimed in, "Brown has practically ruined the state. He has a nice home but he lets the Negroes come right next to you."
Reagan was born in Tampico, Illinois which is in the 14th congressional district, currently represented by conservative Democrat Bill Foster. One district over (IL-13) is conservative Republican Judy Biggert, who started her political career in the Illinois House of Representatives in 1992, when Reagan was already drooling on himself and was 3 years out of the White House. Yesterday she ran a poll (above) asking her constituents if they support the health reform bill as it now stands in the House, something she vociferously opposes. They don't agree with her. By a huge margin-- 70-20%-- Biggert's constituents, who rejected McCain for Obama by nearly ten percentage points, want the public option as a choice in the new legislation. Biggert has a long sordid history of stretching the truth into unrecognizable claims. Recently, like many Republicans, she took credit for the salutary impact of a transit and housing bill she tried to kill and voted against.
Biggert is on record opposing the legislation-- and on record lying about it to her constituents. "For most Americans, including those with private health coverage, the bill before Congress will mean major changes-- or even an end-- to their current plans or benefits. Others will find themselves affected through new taxes, employer mandates, and regulations on what medical options are available for providers and patients... [T]he bill will create more than fifty new bureaucracies, generate miles of red tape, and let Washington make decisions for doctors and patients. The end result? Revolutionary changes in medicine, including rationed care, lower standards, and long waiting lists for such common procedures as knee replacements or bypass surgery."
Apparently the voters in the west Chicago suburbs know her well enough to know when she's lying (her lips are moving). They told her on her own website they want the legislation to pass. Why do Republicans lie? You think there might be a connection to the $316,351 Congresswoman Biggert has scooped up from Big Insurance and their lobbyists? How about another $245,650 she got out of the Medical-Industrial Complex? That's about 550,000 reasons to distort the facts about health care reform exactly like her contributors are telling her to.
Labels: health insurance, Judy Biggert, Rick Perlstein, Ronald Reagan, the nature of conservatism
11 Comments:
Apparently I am the only one in the world with enough time to read your comments--oh well. Social Security is financially BROKE. Medicaire is financially BROKE.
Medicaide is Financisally BROKE.
Why would you support a law that turns over your private health to the federal government?
Because Progressives, i.e. socialists, believe that someone else will pay the bill. It is that simple. They have never realized that the "working poor" and middle class pay the bills. Always have and always will.
For some unknown reason, progressives think that the "Rich" will pay. They don't. But it doesn't keep them from irrational exuberance for their dreamed utopia.
"Because Progressives, i.e. socialists, believe that someone else will pay the bill. It is that simple. They have never realized that the "working poor" and middle class pay the bills. Always have and always will."
Translation: "I'm an idiot who has refused to listen to what's going on, and don't realize that much of the cost of health care reform will be borne by a very small tax on the upper income types." Keep digging yourself deeper, Jan. You're doing fine! All ignorance, all the time!
"Why do Republicans lie?"
Silly question. Republicans lie because no one would ever vote for them if they told the truth.
Translation: "I'm an idiot who has refused to listen to what's going on, and don't realize that much of the cost of health care reform will be borne by a very small tax on the upper income types." Keep digging yourself deeper, Jan. You're doing fine! All ignorance, all the time!
Balakirev, this tells me that you are a shallow thinker. when you don't have a reasoned response you make a personal attack. In other words you are projecting your faulty reasoning onto me.
If you would do a little deep thinking rather than using your narrow mind you will find that I am correct and you are the ignorant one.
Don't you realize that the "upper income types" collect the taxes and remit them to the government? You and I and the rest of the consumers of this country pay the taxes, which are hidden from our view but built into everything we spend our money on.
You need to think before you make personal attacks, unless of course, you like being lead by the nose by the other socialists. Do you even know how to be an independent thinker?
Of course I'm shallow, Jan, to the person who reflexively opens his mouth to pop out "Socialist!" like a cuckoo clock every time anybody uses the word "progressive." I'd care about your name-calling, I really would, if I didn't discount your views because they weren't backed by any facts.
"Don't you realize that the "upper income types" collect the taxes and remit them to the government? You and I and the rest of the consumers of this country pay the taxes, which are hidden from our view but built into everything we spend our money on."
You do realize that the IRS collects taxes? And that it's the top federal income tax bracket that got walloping breaks under the Bush administration? How do you square these hard, cold facts with your billowing trip into fantasyland? Please: give us the logical facts, in order. I'd love to hear you do more for a change than state things that make no sense.
And for the record, restoring some of what the wealthiest Americans used to pay will pay for a federal health care system with single payer option. It's all there, in great detail, all the facts worked out on paper. Check out some of the health care wonks--maybe Yglesias, or Ezra Klein. Easier to listen to Faux News than it is to read the details, though, isn't it? Bet you won't read a thing about it. Ignorance is too precious to pollute with little things like facts.
Balakirev, you just don't get it do you.
Where do you think the "rich" get their income with which to pay their taxes?
They earn it either providing goods or services, mostly through businesses.
Now where do businesses get their money to pay the "rich"?
Have you ever heard the term "costs of goods sold"?
Do you think that money magically appears?
All the taxes, wages, profit (from which taxes are paid) are in the cost of your clothes, food, rent, etc.
And who pays for your clothes, food, rent, etc. - not the rich. Need a hint?
In other words, the rich pass the taxes down to you and me and everyone else. The taxes are hidden, so idiots like you don't see them and think they don't exist.
The IRS just enforces the collection of the taxes.
You just keep on dreaming that you don't pay those taxes.
Now, about being a socialist. You must be to react so. And you do believe that someone else - the rich - will pay the bill, don't you.
Gee, Jan, since you actually realize that the rich pay taxes, maybe you'll make the logical jump to realizing that they've paid far less thanks to tax cuts during the Bush years--and that by reestablishing a portion of the taxes they used to pay, a government-based public option for health care can be funded. Get it? Money from the rich goes to pay for the health care. That otherwise...wait for it...would go directly into the pockets of the richest few.
Why you would want to leave it in those pockets is best left to your own benighted fantasies. Because either you're one of the wealthiest lot, or you're one of the suckers they've convinced that being screwed over is right and proper.
I'm betting on the second. I have faith in you, Jan.
"Now, about being a socialist. You must be to react so."
There's a perfect Jan-ism, one of your set of rules! "Don't ask me why progressives are automatically socialists, or you're one, too!" Makes about as much sense as your refusal to read up on government-funded health care. You didn't bother with Ygelisas or Klein, did you? Or anything anybody has written about it, I'll bet. It's well, socialism. So it need not be investigated.
Prove me wrong. Hey, it's my third request! Maybe it'll come true. You'll start working off health care facts for a change, and discuss them.
I give up. You don't buy anything, so you don't pay any of the taxes that went into the price.
It seems to me you are simply jealous of who you think is rich.
Maybe one day you will wake up and think, why do these goods I am buying cost so much. Oh, you'll blame the rich, when you should be looking into the mirror.
BTW, you are not talking health care, but health insurance. you are mixing apples and oranges.
Take an accounting course, maybe cost accounting, and see how costs including taxes are passed on to the consumer. Last I looked most consumers were not rich.
You prove me wrong.
And it is health insurance not health care. There is a difference.
"Congress can raise taxes because it can persuade a sizable fraction of the populace that somebody else will pay." -- Milton Friedman
"It seems to me you are simply jealous of who you think is rich."
Jan, do you think the wealthy should, like the middle and lower incomes, pay a fair share of their wealth to the government in exchange for services?
If you believe nobody should, that's another argument.
If you believe the wealthy should do the same as other income levels, we have no disagreement.
If you want to argue respective levels of support from the wealthy, we are into a nuanced discussion that would be fine by me, provided you're truly willing to explore a variety of scenarios, some of which have already drawn extensive comment from economists.
If you just feel the wealthy shouldn't pay because...they shouldn't...then I'm just going to laugh at you. And as I've already asked--and you haven't answered--what's wrong with funding public health care through restoring a portion of the tax dollars on the rich lost during the Bush years?
If you won't answer that, you've lost my respect, in turn.
"Maybe one day you will wake up and think, why do these goods I am buying cost so much. Oh, you'll blame the rich, when you should be looking into the mirror."
I hope I'm a bit more nuanced than this, and a bit more capable of understanding the relative pressures of economic forces, legal measures, and broader cultural issues than you seem to think. I'm still not sure why you think "tax the rich=prices rise," though. If that's not your approach, feel free to explain at length. Just keep it realistic.
"BTW, you are not talking health care, but health insurance. you are mixing apples and oranges."
You really don't see the way a public option for health insurance, plus Medicare, plus federally funded mental health clinics, plus the VA, really equals better health care for many, do you? Or how taking care of health issues before they become severe actually results in longterm savings? Did you read Iglesias' latest on the latter, by the way?
Jan, do you think the wealthy should, like the middle and lower incomes, pay a fair share of their wealth to the government in exchange for services?
Since wealthy are consumers also, they do pay their share. The question you ask is loaded, tho. What is a fair share and how is it measured when the taxes actually paid is hidden.
-what's wrong with funding public health care through restoring a portion of the tax dollars on the rich lost during the Bush years?
If you won't answer that, you've lost my respect, in turn
I didn't think I had your respect because you have called me an idiot at least 2 times.
I have answered your question several times. You just think the tax is being paid by the rich, when in fact they are collecting the taxes from us and sending it to the government. How much of these taxes I am paying I will never know. How much more will goods cost because of the increase in the "tax on the rich"?
You really don't see the way a public option for health insurance, plus Medicare, plus federally funded mental health clinics, plus the VA, really equals better health care for many, do you? Or how taking care of health issues before they become severe actually results in longterm savings? Did you read Iglesias' latest on the latter, by the way?
I try to think for myself. If the government takes over health care so everyone has health care, What happens to the VA? Will it be separate but equal? Why would there be a need for the VA?
Obesity is a big problem. Once the government takes over health care will the government regiment our diets and mandate exercise? If not, why not? After all there are long term benefits.
If 45 million people are without health care because they can't pay, how does making it appear to be free to them cost less?
If we have public health care at little or no costs, what incentive is there not to go to a doctor for anything?
If we have public health care, will the "wealthy" get the same health care as the rest of us or will they get better private care? Will the government prevent them from getting better care that they can afford or will they be required to be on the same plan as every one else?
President Obama said that he wanted us to have the same coverage he had in the Senate, will we get the same coverage?
Will doctor's get to treat their family members outside the public option? Will anyone be allowed to opt out and pay their own way or will everyone be forced into the same system?
Will we restore Prohibition to combat alcoholism?
Will there be any restrictions on building or expanding hospitals and hospital services?
Will the government require us to prove our ability or inability to pay when we go to get treatment?
Will the government cover experimental treatment?
Will individuals still have privacy in the health records once the government controls care?
Do you really want those nasty lying Republicans running the system when they get back in power?
Will the government not pick and chose health winners and losers like they have economic winners and losers? Will doctors unionize so they can better negotiate with the government?
Once there is a public option, why would anyone stay with private coverage?
Why doesn't the government just hire all the doctors and provide us with free care and pay them like military doctors?
I would like to know the answer to these and more, wouldn't you?
Post a Comment
<< Home