PolitiFact Spanked on ObamaCare

[NYcarbineer]

Nor is stating that it did not happen going to make the opinion invalid.

The opinion that government has taken over the healthcare industry is not supported by the facts.

When I can't find a doctor in the U.S. who isn't working for the government, then you'll have at least a starting point from which to make your opinion 'valid'.

The opinion that the government is trying to take over health care is supported by what the government says. That makes anyone that says that this law is a first step down the slippery slope to government run health care, which is what almost everyone who is saying anything like that is actually saying, right.

Just a reminder, this was Politifact's rationale for calling this a lie:


An inaccurate claim

``Government takeover'' conjures a European approach where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees. But the law Congress passed, parts of which have already gone into effect, relies largely on the free market:

• Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.

• Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health coverage. The law sets up ``exchanges'' where private insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don't have it.

• The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors.

• The law does not include the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers.

• The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine.

PolitiFact reporters have studied the 906-page bill and interviewed independent health care experts. We have concluded it is inaccurate to call the plan a government takeover because it relies largely on the existing system of health coverage provided by employers.

Read more: PolitiFact Lie of the Year: 'Government takeover of health care' - Political Currents - MiamiHerald.com

 

[Revere]

Government is running their business. Research is for nothing unless government says so.

 

[Revere]

The opinion that government has taken over the healthcare industry is not supported by the facts.

When I can't find a doctor in the U.S. who isn't working for the government, then you'll have at least a starting point from which to make your opinion 'valid'.

The opinion that the government is trying to take over health care is supported by what the government says. That makes anyone that says that this law is a first step down the slippery slope to government run health care, which is what almost everyone who is saying anything like that is actually saying, right.

Just a reminder, this was Politifact's rationale for calling this a lie:


An inaccurate claim

``Government takeover'' conjures a European approach where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees. But the law Congress passed, parts of which have already gone into effect, relies largely on the free market:

• Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.

• Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health coverage. The law sets up ``exchanges'' where private insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don't have it.

• The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors.

• The law does not include the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers.

• The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine.

PolitiFact reporters have studied the 906-page bill and interviewed independent health care experts. We have concluded it is inaccurate to call the plan a government takeover because it relies largely on the existing system of health coverage provided by employers.

Read more: PolitiFact Lie of the Year: 'Government takeover of health care' - Political Currents - MiamiHerald.com

It's a takeover.

None of that happens unless government forces it to happen.

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, see this is how it works...

...if you broaden out your definition of what 'government takeover' means to the point where anything and everything the government is a factor in can be classified as a 'government takeover', then sure,

healthcare qualifies.

In case you haven't noticed it yet, that's the defiinition of SOCIALISM a lot of the wingers on here are going by.

Oh, I've been noting for years the love affair with exaggeration that rightwingers have. They can't even be satisfied with a story that's good, from their perspective, they'll STILL exaggerate and distort it.

It's an affliction.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The opinion that the government is trying to take over health care is supported by what the government says. That makes anyone that says that this law is a first step down the slippery slope to government run health care, which is what almost everyone who is saying anything like that is actually saying, right.

Just a reminder, this was Politifact's rationale for calling this a lie:


An inaccurate claim

``Government takeover'' conjures a European approach where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees. But the law Congress passed, parts of which have already gone into effect, relies largely on the free market:

• Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.

• Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health coverage. The law sets up ``exchanges'' where private insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don't have it.

• The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors.

• The law does not include the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers.

• The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine.

PolitiFact reporters have studied the 906-page bill and interviewed independent health care experts. We have concluded it is inaccurate to call the plan a government takeover because it relies largely on the existing system of health coverage provided by employers.

Read more: PolitiFact Lie of the Year: 'Government takeover of health care' - Political Currents - MiamiHerald.com

It's a takeover.

None of that happens unless government forces it to happen.

You might then as well classify the Constitution as a government takeover.

 

[Revere]

You support all the new control, yet you don't call it control.

Who distorts?

 

[Revere]

Just a reminder, this was Politifact's rationale for calling this a lie:


An inaccurate claim

``Government takeover'' conjures a European approach where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees. But the law Congress passed, parts of which have already gone into effect, relies largely on the free market:

• Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.

• Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health coverage. The law sets up ``exchanges'' where private insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don't have it.

• The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors.

• The law does not include the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers.

• The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine.

PolitiFact reporters have studied the 906-page bill and interviewed independent health care experts. We have concluded it is inaccurate to call the plan a government takeover because it relies largely on the existing system of health coverage provided by employers.

Read more: PolitiFact Lie of the Year: 'Government takeover of health care' - Political Currents - MiamiHerald.com

It's a takeover.

None of that happens unless government forces it to happen.

You might then as well classify the Constitution as a government takeover.

The Constitution limits what government can do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Again.


gov. mandates you will buy it or subsidize it for others


gov. mandates what kind


gov. fines you if you don't do as they tell you to do..




sounds like a takeover to me.

I have to buy car insurance. That hardly means that the government has taken over the insurance industry.

Why do you have to buy car insurance?

I'm guessing that's a rhetorical question. I have to buy it because my state government has taken over motoring in NYS.



Shall we move on to compulsory education?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's a takeover.

None of that happens unless government forces it to happen.

You might then as well classify the Constitution as a government takeover.

The Constitution limits what government can do.

Yet, conversely, the Constitution ALLOWS government regulation. So if you're going to classify all government regulation as falling under the umbrella of a 'takeover',

then the Constitution is in fact the enabling document FOR 'government takeover'.

 

[Revere]

You might then as well classify the Constitution as a government takeover.

The Constitution limits what government can do.

Yet, conversely, the Constitution ALLOWS government regulation. So if you're going to classify all government regulation as falling under the umbrella of a 'takeover',

then the Constitution is in fact the enabling document.

Obamacare is unconstitutional. The Constitution prohibits government from doing exactly what Obamacare wants do to.

 

[EriktheRed]

You support all the new control, yet you don't call it control.

Who distorts?

We're saying more regulation doesn't equal a "government takeover".

 

[Revere]

I have to buy car insurance. That hardly means that the government has taken over the insurance industry.

Why do you have to buy car insurance?

I'm guessing that's a rhetorical question. I have to buy it because my state government has taken over motoring in NYS.



Shall we move on to compulsory education?

If you don't drive, you don't have to buy insurance.

The dropout rate in urban school systems approaches 50%.

What is so compulsory about that?

 

[Revere]

You support all the new control, yet you don't call it control.

Who distorts?

We're saying more regulation doesn't equal a "government takeover".

In this case, it does.

Are you free if government makes you buy health insurance?

 

[EriktheRed]

You support all the new control, yet you don't call it control.

Who distorts?

We're saying more regulation doesn't equal a "government takeover".

In this case, it does.

Are you free if government makes you buy health insurance?

I don't feel any less free over the idea, kinda like people in other countries don't, either. Last time I was in Germany and Canada, I found them to not to be authoritarian cesspools and the people still had a lot of personal freedom to live their daily lives as they wished.

 

[Revere]

People in other countries who have to buy health insurance are not free.

I am for freedom, not the false utopia of government social security.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And Frank counters with an unreadable chart of some sort. lol

And you totally miss the point. That chart is a diagram of what the new law mandates for government oversight of the health care industry.

Do you understand the term 'unreadable'? I mean LITERALLY unreadable, as in, the words cannot be SEEN clearly enough to read.

Maybe that is why none of the politicians wanted to read it beofre they voted on it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The opinion that government has taken over the healthcare industry is not supported by the facts.

When I can't find a doctor in the U.S. who isn't working for the government, then you'll have at least a starting point from which to make your opinion 'valid'.

The opinion that the government is trying to take over health care is supported by what the government says. That makes anyone that says that this law is a first step down the slippery slope to government run health care, which is what almost everyone who is saying anything like that is actually saying, right.

Just a reminder, this was Politifact's rationale for calling this a lie:


An inaccurate claim

``Government takeover'' conjures a European approach where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees. But the law Congress passed, parts of which have already gone into effect, relies largely on the free market:

• Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.

• Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health coverage. The law sets up ``exchanges'' where private insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don't have it.

• The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors.

• The law does not include the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers.

• The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine.

PolitiFact reporters have studied the 906-page bill and interviewed independent health care experts. We have concluded it is inaccurate to call the plan a government takeover because it relies largely on the existing system of health coverage provided by employers.

Read more: PolitiFact Lie of the Year: 'Government takeover of health care' - Political Currents - MiamiHerald.com

Like I said before, they are picking their facts to support their political ideology, just like you. Would you like a list of the various politicians who have said publicly that Obamacare is the first step to the same single payer system that exists in Europe? Or would a single person pointing out that this is the ultimate strategy prove that someone is ignoring what people are saying?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-_SGGcJu_c[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have to buy car insurance. That hardly means that the government has taken over the insurance industry.

Why do you have to buy car insurance?

I'm guessing that's a rhetorical question. I have to buy it because my state government has taken over motoring in NYS.



Shall we move on to compulsory education?

I never ask rhetorical questions. Why do you have to buy car insurance? A piece of advice in advance, don't try to blame it on the state government, because they do not require anyone to buy car insurance.

 

[Greenbeard]

Perhaps this conversation would be more productive if someone actually defined what a "government takeover" is. We have some people saying it doesn't amount to government ownership of either the delivery system or the insurance industry, while others are attempting to draw a comparison with the government's majority share ownership of GM. Others are pointing to benefit mandates (not new), attempts by the government to use payment policy to get more value out of the delivery system (not new), and charts mostly of structures and agencies that have existed for years (often decades).

Some are arguing the government has "taken over" the provider side through its influence when historically it's the medical professional itself that sought protection of its industry through government licensing requirements and certifications of medical schools. Training hospitals have welcomed Medicare's role as the largest funder of graduate medical education in the country. Both are developments that took place decades ago with the support of (and sometimes at the urging of) the provider community. So when did the government takeover happen? 1910? 1965?

If you want to argue that a government takeover occurred this year, you'll have to identify something that actually changed this year and explain how it constitutes a takeover (and what exactly has been taken over).

 

[Trajan]

There was no government takeover of healthcare. Period. Denying it isn't going to make the lie true.

did you read the article in full, because thats not exactly the premise.