A liar and his lying lies

The Heritage Foundation dispels the out-and-out lies and the stretched truths in Obama’s “townhall”:

“I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter.” This is directly contradicted by candidate Barack Obama’s own website which quotes Obama at a rally in Ames, Iowa form 2008: “If I were designing a system from scratch I would probably set up a single-payer system. … So what I believe is we should set up a series of choices….Over time it may be that we end up transitioning to such a system.” So there you have in one paragraph the true purpose of Obama’s public option: a vehicle to slowly transition all Americans out of private coverage and into a government-run single payer health care system. This Trojan Horse view of the public option has been reaffirmed by Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein, and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

“Under the reform we’re proposing, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” This statement is also plainly false. Again, as demonstrated above, the true purpose of Obama’s public option is to move Americans out of their private coverage and into government run health care. Independent, non-partisan analysis from the Lewin Group has confirmed the House bill, H.R. 3200, will do exactly that: About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.

“That’s what the health exchange is all about, is that you — just like a member of Congress — can go and choose the plan that’s right for you.” This statement isn’t false, but it is misleading. Members of Congress do purchase their health care through a health exchange: the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Through the FEHBP 283 private plans compete for federal employees’ health care dollars. The Heritage Foundation has long been a supporter of health reform that empowers consumers to utilize a FEHBP like system. But Obamacare is nothing like the FEHBP system. There is no government run public option competing with private plans in the FEHBP. So whenever Obama says that a health exchange already “drives down costs” he is right … but remember that this cost reduction is achieved purely by private health coverage without any “competition” from a government run public option.

Read the rest here.  If I were any good at photoshop, I’d create a picture of Obama a nose ten feet long.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Danny Lemieux

    Were you able to raise Mr. Book’s eyebrow even a tiny bit with this information?

  • suek

    You know…Palin has been taken to task for her “death board” comments. It has been widely dismissed as one of those “misleading statements” people have made about the health care plan. Yet. Just recently, a man and his wife have been found guilty of murder because they didn’t seek medical care for their daughter (for religious reasons). The fact that they had religious cause was not considered relevant to the fact that they elected _not_ to get medical care for their daughter. So…the courts have thereby established that choosing not to provide medical care when such an option is available and would result in correcting a life threatening condition. The Health care plan expects to establish a IMAC board which would decide who would get access to available medical care. It would do so based on availability of resources and the value of the individual to society (!). That means that in some cases, access to available medical care would be denied. How does that differ from the case of the parents convicted of murder? How can that _not_ be called a “death board”?

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aGrKbfWkzTqc

  • suek

    >>…would result in correcting a life threatening condition..>.

    should be “…would result in correcting a life threatening condition is murder.”

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    How can that _not_ be called a “death board”?

    Cause the Democrats support it. The caring and lovable Democrats would never support something that is Death Penalty orientated. Oh no. They’re too cuddly for that.