PolitiFact Spanked on ObamaCare

[Trajan]

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

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.

the 2 are completely and absolutely incompatible.

 

[Trajan]

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

so they have constructed their own cherry picked cum strawman to counter what they have framed there by, innacurate and anon fact..great stuff that is.

 

[Trajan]

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).

well said, and I will point out what I was going to point out to carbineer ala the post I referenced back in a quote him...WSJ describes their angst with the Politfact diatribe thus;



PolitiFact's decree is part of a larger journalistic trend that seeks to recast all political debates as matters of lies, misinformation and "facts," rather than differences of world view or principles. PolitiFact wants to define for everyone else what qualifies as a "fact," though in political debates the facts are often legitimately in dispute.

For instance, everyone can probably agree that Medicare's 75-year unfunded liability is somewhere around $30.8 trillion. But that's different from a qualitative judgment, such as the wisdom of a new health-care entitlement that was sold politically as a way to reduce entitlement spending. But anyway, let's try to parse PolitiFact's ObamaCare reasoning.

Evidently, it doesn't count as a government takeover unless the means of production are confiscated. "The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors," the editors write, and while "it's true that the law does significantly increase government regulation of health insurers," they'll still be nominally private too.

In fact—if we may use that term without PolitiFact's seal of approval—at the heart of ObamaCare is a vast expansion of federal control over how U.S. health care is financed, and thus delivered. The regulations that PolitiFact waves off are designed to convert insurers into government contractors in the business of fulfilling political demands, with enormous implications for the future of U.S. medicine. All citizens will be required to pay into this system, regardless of their individual needs or preferences.

rest at-

Review & Outlook: PolitiFiction - WSJ.com


so here, I will take the plunge, I agree wiht them in in that it is a fact that IMHO, the gov. IS enacting ( or that is attempting to) a " vast expansion of federal control over how U.S. health care is financed, and thus delivered".

We can of course discuss terms of 'degree', but in essence, do you disagree with my view?

 

[Greenbeard]

so here, I will take the plunge, I agree wiht them in in that it is a fact that IMHO, the gov. IS enacting ( or that is attempting to) a " vast expansion of federal control over how U.S. health care is financed, and thus delivered".

We can of course discuss terms of 'degree', but in essence, do you disagree with my view?

I don't know what your view is because you're not taking the time to articulate it. You're giving me a soundbite that offers no insight into what you're thinking or even what you're talking about. Are you referring to the government using the tax code to subsidize health insurance relative to other goods? That's been the case since 1943 for most of the private market; only a small segment of the health insurance market hasn't enjoyed that benefit up to now. Or are you referring to the simplification and expansion of Medicaid eligibility requirements?

 

[Revere]

so here, I will take the plunge, I agree wiht them in in that it is a fact that IMHO, the gov. IS enacting ( or that is attempting to) a " vast expansion of federal control over how U.S. health care is financed, and thus delivered".

We can of course discuss terms of 'degree', but in essence, do you disagree with my view?

I don't know what your view is because you're not taking the time to articulate it. You're giving me a soundbite that offers no insight into what you're thinking or even what you're talking about. Are you referring to the government using the tax code to subsidize health insurance relative to other goods? That's been the case since 1943 for most of the private market; only a small segment of the health insurance market hasn't enjoyed that benefit up to now. Or are you referring to the simplification and expansion of Medicaid eligibility requirements?

There goes old Greenbeard.

"Gee, you already took one bite of the shit sandwich. Why not eat it all?"

 

[Trajan]

so here, I will take the plunge, I agree wiht them in in that it is a fact that IMHO, the gov. IS enacting ( or that is attempting to) a " vast expansion of federal control over how U.S. health care is financed, and thus delivered".

We can of course discuss terms of 'degree', but in essence, do you disagree with my view?

I don't know what your view is because you're not taking the time to articulate it. You're giving me a soundbite that offers no insight into what you're thinking or even what you're talking about. Are you referring to the government using the tax code to subsidize health insurance relative to other goods? That's been the case since 1943 for most of the private market; only a small segment of the health insurance market hasn't enjoyed that benefit up to now. Or are you referring to the simplification and expansion of Medicaid eligibility requirements?

I see i have to try this a different way (as usual)......


is the gov. a) diminishing b) leveling or c) expanding its authority to influence or mandate the delivery and financing of health care?

Q- when Nor. Carolina BC/BS returned 155 million dollars to its policy holders, was this; a) done this through their own good graces because they felt it was 'the right thing to do', b) because the state insurance commissioners "have new leverage" c) because they had overcharged their policy holders, d) because the health care act mandated they did so, e)none of the above?


Q-

it's the medical professional itself that sought protection of its industry through government licensing requirements and certifications of medical schools

If the gov. has instituted a licensing requirement and certification process what choice did they have?

We have some people saying it doesn't amount to government ownership of either the delivery system or the insurance industry

no,I think people, well lets say me feels ala Sibelius recent missive based on tenets in the bill, she has now announced that she will provide feedback as to what is or is not an acceptable rate of increase in the med. insurance industry. 45 states I believe have ins. commissioners(?).

so, Q-

what does Sibelius mean when she says-""there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases." ?

ObamaCare gives Sibelius, ( her regulators) the power to define "unreasonable" premium hikes", coming next quarter I believe, what road exactly will she take to enforce this? How is this different from the state ins. comm. process, considerations etc.?

 

[Greenbeard]

is the gov. a) diminishing b) leveling or c) expanding its authority to influence or mandate the delivery and financing of health care?

You have to understand, I deal in specifics, nuts-and-bolts policy. Broad pronouncements designed for rhetorical effect instead of conveying meaning mean very little to me. Government has been “influencing the delivery of health care” for the better part of a century. You understand that they build hospitals right? Remember Hill-Burton? I suppose that means we’ve now pegged 1946 as the date of the “takeover.” Where does the majority of the financing come from in the ACA? It comes from placing limits on the existing limitless federal subsidy enjoyed by health plans in the group market and redirecting it to plans in the individual market. In the short run, a significant chunk comes from redirecting dollars that under the baseline scenario would have already gone to federal health programs.

You hint in the rest of your post at things like rate review and medical loss ratios (though you continue to avoid explicitly saying what’s bothering you, yet imply I’m being evasive). More than half of all states already have the authority to reject premium increases if necessary and nearly all have at least some form of oversight and review authority. What most of them are undertaking now under ACA is improving their internal processes, involving the public, incorporating better technology. Some are widening their scope to additional segments of the state health insurance market. The rate review provisions are effectively a greater standardization of oversight authority across states. Does having a state insurance commissioner constitute a takeover of the insurance industry? Again, if so, that ship has long sailed.

But since "influencing the delivery of care" is apparently the calling card of an evil government takeover, I'm curious about something. Over the past twenty years, several states have reorganized their state health policy apparatus as a Health Authority. In doing so, they collect all of the state health purchasers under a single roof with the explicit aim of maximizing the state's purchasing power to influence the state delivery system. Oregon is the latest state to do this but Kansas did it a few years back and Oklahoma did it well over a decade ago. Is that a "government takeover"? If so, it sounds like a great many states were taken over by the government well before the ACA was passed; and I don't just mean states with Health Authorities, as I'm sure states like Massachusetts and Maine also meet whatever your vague definition of "government takeover" is.

I suppose the obvious question is: if ACA was a government takeover, what part of the health care system hadn't aready been taken over (using a consistent application of your definition) by either the state or federal government and was thus subject to the ACA's takeover? What are you suggesting tangibly changed with the passage of the ACA?

Q- when Nor. Carolina BC/BS returned 155 million dollars to its policy holders, was this; a) done this through their own good graces because they felt it was 'the right thing to do', b) because the state insurance commissioners "have new leverage" c) because they had overcharged their policy holders, d) because the health care act mandated they did so, e)none of the above?

I realize you don’t do nuance but the answer is a mix of “all of the above” and “none of the above.” The reason for the refund is fairly simple:

The refunds come from reserves set aside for these [individual market] policyholders. Some premiums in certain policies build up reserves to even out the cost of premiums over the life of the policy. The health reform law will provide new versions of these plans starting in 2014, so the current policies will end sooner than originally expected. That frees up some of the reserves to be refunded. Refunds do not apply to employer-sponsored policies.​

So yes, they overcharged, but that was a practice that made sense in a disorganized individual market. Given that the state will have an exchange in a few years and a robust risk-adjustment mechanism, the reserves they were stockpiling for their individual market clients are no longer necessary (so yes, refunding the money this year is, as their CEO says, the right thing to do). State regulators don’t have new leverage over the individual market, since North Carolina already requires prior approval for premium increases in the individual market. However, while their data is publicly available, they’re exploring the possibility of posting what they call “consumer friendly” summaries so that there’s a bit more sunlight on filings--if public comment is incorporated as a component of premium oversight (see below), public knowledge of the existence of large reserves amid premium increases would potentially be damning. I’m sure BCBS also had it on their minds that eventually (though not this year) useless reserves would count against their medical loss ratio and ultimately would likely have to be partially refunded anyway.

If the gov. has instituted a licensing requirement and certification process what choice did they have?

Again, my point is that those kinds of interventions exist because providers desired them. Usurpation and exclusion. They're more than happy to have government involvement in their affairs on any number of occasions (including bearing the costs of training new doctors). So if you want to argue a government takeover of the delivery system is happening now, as opposed to somewhere between 50 and 80 years ago, you have to make a pretty compelling argument as to something having changed substantially

ObamaCare gives Sibelius, ( her regulators) the power to define "unreasonable" premium hikes", coming next quarter I believe, what road exactly will she take to enforce this? How is this different from the state ins. comm. process, considerations etc.?

The proposed rule on premium review was released three days ago and HHS is not defining “unreasonable premium increases” for states. Rate increases of more than 10% will be examined with respect to established actuarial principles and each state will apply its own standard to determine whether the rate increase is justified by the expected losses of the risk pool. That 10% figure for triggering a rate review is just a placeholder; the rule expresses the hope that in a year a tailor-made figure, informed by past experience and local market structure, will be available for each state. But no, Sebelius is not explicitly telling states what “unreasonable” means. To quote the proposed rule:

This proposed regulation does not establish a standard for unreasonableness that a State must use or apply; nor does it require a numerical standard to be applied under State law to determine whether a rate increase is unreasonable. Rather, a State regulator would apply the applicable standards that exist under State law. Finally, we are soliciting public comment on whether the public’s ability to comment on unreasonable rate increases during the review process should be considered as one criterion for an effective rate review program.​

The public comment period on the proposed rule is now open if you wish to weigh in.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Again, my point is that those kinds of interventions exist because providers desired them. Usurpation and exclusion. They're more than happy to have government involvement in their affairs on any number of occasions (including bearing the costs of training new doctors). So if you want to argue a government takeover of the delivery system is happening now, as opposed to somewhere between 50 and 80 years ago, you have to make a pretty compelling argument as to something having changed substantially

Do you support rent seeking? Just because elements of an industry support something it does not make it a good idea, nor does it mean that the government is not taking over that industry. It just means that they are doing it by favoring certain companies and driving others out.

 

[Trajan]

is the gov. a) diminishing b) leveling or c) expanding its authority to influence or mandate the delivery and financing of health care?

You have to understand, I deal in specifics, nuts-and-bolts policy. Broad pronouncements designed for rhetorical effect instead of conveying meaning mean very little to me. Government has been “influencing the delivery of health care” for the better part of a century. You understand that they build hospitals right? Remember Hill-Burton? I suppose that means we’ve now pegged 1946 as the date of the “takeover.” Where does the majority of the financing come from in the ACA? It comes from placing limits on the existing limitless federal subsidy enjoyed by health plans in the group market and redirecting it to plans in the individual market. In the short run, a significant chunk comes from redirecting dollars that under the baseline scenario would have already gone to federal health programs.

You hint in the rest of your post at things like rate review and medical loss ratios (though you continue to avoid explicitly saying what’s bothering you, yet imply I’m being evasive). More than half of all states already have the authority to reject premium increases if necessary and nearly all have at least some form of oversight and review authority. What most of them are undertaking now under ACA is improving their internal processes, involving the public, incorporating better technology. Some are widening their scope to additional segments of the state health insurance market. The rate review provisions are effectively a greater standardization of oversight authority across states. Does having a state insurance commissioner constitute a takeover of the insurance industry? Again, if so, that ship has long sailed.

But since "influencing the delivery of care" is apparently the calling card of an evil government takeover, I'm curious about something. Over the past twenty years, several states have reorganized their state health policy apparatus as a Health Authority. In doing so, they collect all of the state health purchasers under a single roof with the explicit aim of maximizing the state's purchasing power to influence the state delivery system. Oregon is the latest state to do this but Kansas did it a few years back and Oklahoma did it well over a decade ago. Is that a "government takeover"? If so, it sounds like a great many states were taken over by the government well before the ACA was passed; and I don't just mean states with Health Authorities, as I'm sure states like Massachusetts and Maine also meet whatever your vague definition of "government takeover" is.

I suppose the obvious question is: if ACA was a government takeover, what part of the health care system hadn't aready been taken over (using a consistent application of your definition) by either the state or federal government and was thus subject to the ACA's takeover? What are you suggesting tangibly changed with the passage of the ACA?

Q- when Nor. Carolina BC/BS returned 155 million dollars to its policy holders, was this; a) done this through their own good graces because they felt it was 'the right thing to do', b) because the state insurance commissioners "have new leverage" c) because they had overcharged their policy holders, d) because the health care act mandated they did so, e)none of the above?

I realize you don’t do nuance but the answer is a mix of “all of the above” and “none of the above.” The reason for the refund is fairly simple:

The refunds come from reserves set aside for these [individual market] policyholders. Some premiums in certain policies build up reserves to even out the cost of premiums over the life of the policy. The health reform law will provide new versions of these plans starting in 2014, so the current policies will end sooner than originally expected. That frees up some of the reserves to be refunded. Refunds do not apply to employer-sponsored policies.​

So yes, they overcharged, but that was a practice that made sense in a disorganized individual market. Given that the state will have an exchange in a few years and a robust risk-adjustment mechanism, the reserves they were stockpiling for their individual market clients are no longer necessary (so yes, refunding the money this year is, as their CEO says, the right thing to do). State regulators don’t have new leverage over the individual market, since North Carolina already requires prior approval for premium increases in the individual market. However, while their data is publicly available, they’re exploring the possibility of posting what they call “consumer friendly” summaries so that there’s a bit more sunlight on filings--if public comment is incorporated as a component of premium oversight (see below), public knowledge of the existence of large reserves amid premium increases would potentially be damning. I’m sure BCBS also had it on their minds that eventually (though not this year) useless reserves would count against their medical loss ratio and ultimately would likely have to be partially refunded anyway.

The public comment period on the proposed rule is now open if you wish to weigh in.

Have you ever heard the phrase- “no plan survives contact with the enemy”?

Old military saying. You can plot plan and scheme, put everything in neat bundled reams of paper, all set forth; each battalion, regt. and division assigned its place, food, ammo, signals, transportation set in motion to meet them at their appointed place and time.

Guess what? The minute they move out and cross the lines, or the fleet is engaged all of it goes out the window, they are flying by the seat of their pants. Due to unforeseen circumstances and the law of unintended consequence as every action they take is met by a reaction by the other side creates a whirlpool of complex dance that loses all but facile relation to “the plan”. The opposition if you will does not respond the way you want them to or as the plan envisioned.

I asked you a question; did you think that the gov. the fed. gov was via influence upon delv. And financing of healthcare extending its influence etc. staying roughly the same or diminishing its role. You then expounded on how the states by and large are already heavily involved in regulatory engagement etc etc...the gov. buidlls hospitals and by virtue of their onw regulatory commissions licenses doctors nurses hospitals schools etc....yes, I am aware of that, I don’t even care for their central planning, the issue is the federal gov’s all encompassing top down central planning, are we suppose to that a machine by order of magnitudes larger by comparison is going to be anymore efficient, why? Because they have all the reigns in their hands, or that’s let me re-phrase are ‘influencing’ the subordinate markets etc?

Your answer summed up is, and this is not new; ‘ you already have some of that, whats wrong with more’, and then detail why it will ‘work’. Do you understand the problems many have with this thinking? Its a conceptual and philosophical influence I am not sure you quite grasp.

I asked you about rationing, your answer, in a nutshell was, well, rationing is already taking place and then went off on a nuts and bolts scheme as everything will be better this time and this is an improvement. You are a nuts and bolts guy, you may be very good at it, but a virtue may also be a handicap and yes that works both ways, you will dive into minutiae to describe how things are either half way there already and how things will be set right if we only trust a larger mechanism to take control or “influence” the device.

Maybe a little distance might do you some good. Medicare and Medicaid had the virtue of starting form a much cleaner slate, with much bi-partisan sppt as well in a much younger market.

I am sure the nuts and bolts guys told us all hey when this is enacted and actually takes effect and this is done and we have adjusted this, all will be well. Hows that working out? The budgets they forecast in 25 years below by their original forecasting by 3 orders of magnitude, think on that a moment. And they are a mess...yes yes the reps may have done this the dems that each has tinkered with the system and that’s exactly the point. BUT now, we are going to allow the feds, an even larger less flexible org. influence it all across the board and the present day cousins of those nuts and bolts guys in 65 are telling us; all is well, don’t worry....how many hiccups has Obama care hit already? If the mandate is off the table, even the truncated sniveling one they enacted, its over, oh yes slot A goes in groove b and we can work around it or we have a plan for that etc etc etc etc ...

The financing was a ghost you know it, I know it, and it has not gotten any better, with the mandate looking shaky? What then? Nope, no retreat, like a general screaming at his corp commanders who cannot take their objective ground by the day assigned- I told you follow the plan!!!!!!!

And lets remember, the plan meanwhile wasn’t even fully complete, the senate due to Scott Browns election forced the House to vote on it as it was delivered, as they could not force cloture again with Scott on board, so they could not change a thing, god knows how much worse or if the changes they envisioned would have been an improvement but here we are.

Organizations, most especially organizations in the gov. are especially territorial an hierarchal, the fed and state orgs are not are not blocks of wood ( as we have seen, you may not like what they are doing but it’s the law of unintended consequence and changes the paradigm) and neither are the other depts. grps sects either in existence now or son to be created to fill the basket of fed. control or influence that will influence the del. and financing.

Put dowel A in slot B, slide B into groove C and come up with D. To the degree you introduce MORE complexity via orgs, depts. influences, concomitantly efficiency degrades.

I will be specific as to the North Carolina issue if I may there wasa reason aside form the ‘nuts and bolts’ I asked you about this; now as I understand it, BC/BS liquidated its active life reserves, by returning them to the policy holders. Okay, now these active life reserves are funds built up over time to help pave over possible spikes if say costs rise faster than forecast...yes? They draw on the funds to even out premiums...yes?

The ind. Policy holder market will pretty much vaporize in 2014 ....yes? Anyone who modifies or changes their policy won’t be grandfathered in...yes? BC/BS’s ind. market will virtually disappear.....yes? There-fore it doesn’t need the reserves....yes? Ipso- the 2014 roll over has created a regulatory imperative, that’s why they sent the money back....did I sum this up correctly?


One last Q if you will- how would you describe the HHR’s and Sebelius explanations of, detail, general output and honesty as it applies the Obama care?

Lets consider 10 being primo?

Conceptual explanation-
Detail-
Gernral output-
Honesty-

 

[asterism]

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

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.

Not true. You only have to buy car insurance if you own a car, drive it on the public roads, and don't self-insure. Also, those are state requirements not federal requirements.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Political Chick's campaign to cut-and-paste the entire internet on USMB continues.

Waiting for you to discredit what she wrote, not how she wrote it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

When the government creates laws that regulate an industry, that mandates set procedures a doctor and hospital must follow, that mandates that tax payers must have a product or face a fine or imprisonment. Yes that is a take over.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

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.

No one is forced to buy a car either, if you don 't have a car then you aren't forced to have auto insurance.

 

[chanel]

“I happen to be a proponent of single-payer, universal health care plans.”

"But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out.”
Barack Obama

Let the "transition" begin!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvDwFQiSkBU[/ame]

 

[NYcarbineer]

Political Chick's campaign to cut-and-paste the entire internet on USMB continues.

Waiting for you to discredit what she wrote, not how she wrote it.

It's already been discredited in this thread, your pretending it hasn't doesn't change that.

 

[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.

the 2 are completely and absolutely incompatible.

Well that's nonsense because both of them are a government requirement to buy an insurance product from a private company,

so they are definitely not completely and absolutely incompatible.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Political Chick's campaign to cut-and-paste the entire internet on USMB continues.

Waiting for you to discredit what she wrote, not how she wrote it.

It's already been discredited in this thread, your pretending it hasn't doesn't change that.

of course you say it has but you are wrong. Let the discussion begin

 

[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

so they have constructed their own cherry picked cum strawman to counter what they have framed there by, innacurate and anon fact..great stuff that is.

Cherry picking is the only means being used to counter politifact's claim.

My heath insurance from where I work is a self insurance plan; my employer self insures up to a certain dollar amount, out of its own revenues, then buys a stop loss policy in the event we go over that amount in any given year. My doctors are not employed by the government, my pharmaceuticals are not made or sold by the government...

...I guess when the government took over healthcare they forgot about us.

I'm guessing 80% or more of the people on this board are probably in similar situations, i.e., receiving healthcare coverage and services that are not run by the government.

'Government takeover' was conjured up by GOP propagandist Frank Luntz, btw.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Waiting for you to discredit what she wrote, not how she wrote it.

It's already been discredited in this thread, your pretending it hasn't doesn't change that.

of course you say it has but you are wrong. Let the discussion begin

I just did. My own healthcare has not been taken over by the government, therefore there has been no government takeover.