Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Conspiracy theory (healthcare etc)

Posted by on Aug. 16, 2009 at 1:39 PM
  • 29 Replies

I know some people don't appreciate good conspiracy theorizing but, hang in with me for just a minute... I was doing some thinking about the hc bill, the protesting and craziness this morning. 

If we want to get tactical about the whole thing, let's assume for a second that the administration DOES have some sinister agenda. Why would anyone think they'd outline it for us in the hc bill? Honestly, they wouldn't put anything in that piece they don't want people to find. What's paramount to winning a war? Don't underestimate your opponent! They're not just going to rest on the idea that the entire American population is stupid and no one would figure out that all the big, vague text actually meant "death panels". If they actually were that transparent, to me that would just be suggestive that they really AREN'T CAPABLE of carrying out a sinister agenda so, problem solved. But, in the interim of all the screaming matches and town hall fiascoes, HR 2749 passes the House and the protesters are looking crazier and crazier. Perhaps... since nothing in politics is an accident, they're trying to bait people into looking nuts, like a false alarm! I mean, that's what I would do... it would preemptively take out your opposition to clear the way.

lol. Call me insane, I don't care. Just a musing.

by on Aug. 16, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
stormcris
by Christy on Aug. 16, 2009 at 2:08 PM

I must say this is kinda point set match ....no one would have believed the REX 84 agenda was ever authorized by congress if it had gotten out at that time either. Funny thing is they authorized it during four presidencies(two of those were democrats). I love hearing why would they want to kill grandma, or about how the angry mobs are nuts. Yet, they use this smoke screen to pass a much worse bill. People bring up death panels were written by Republicans...OK so you don't think that if they wrote it once before and this bill is manufactured off that bill it might not be in there under some sense? I do not care if people want to call it a conspiracy I sit back and laugh every day that they are quick to say Washington is corrupt but yet defend the words they spew about bills. Can we really trust them to tell us the truth when they are constantly authorizing things like REX 84 and just remember Waxman was in Congress then too.

Raintree
by Ruby Member on Aug. 16, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Well, hang in with me for a minute. Why would private industry not want the exact same thing, only worse? What would it benefit them to have an entire, large population entrusting them with their healthcare- with no other choices?

The liberal person shall be enriched, and he who waters shall himself be watered. Proverbs 11:25

iluvmommyhood58
by Bronze Member on Aug. 16, 2009 at 5:26 PM

Are you saying the private sector... wait, let me gather my thoughts here... 

Let's entertain that Wall St. IS Washington. Would it matter one way or the other to them if this hc bill passed, if it were privatized or not? We've already heard that big pharm has spoken in endorsement of the bill. Some former pharm. CEO's enjoy cushy jobs in Washington and lobby... I'm just saying, this entire hc uproar is becoming a really nice mess, almost comical, which makes me want to quit looking there and look through it to see what else I can see. Maybe the entire point of this isn't about hc at all. Maybe it's just to further divide the population and distract to pave the road... 

Quoting Raintree:

Well, hang in with me for a minute. Why would private industry not want the exact same thing, only worse? What would it benefit them to have an entire, large population entrusting them with their healthcare- with no other choices?


iluvmommyhood58
by Bronze Member on Aug. 16, 2009 at 5:35 PM

I think the one thing we can learn across the board is that Washington is capable of things beyond what we'd like to imagine. I think it's probably impossible to fully piece together plans for elitist agenda because there's just so much involvement in everything but the bottom line... requires some thinking outside the box and one can begin to piece things together that might make some very scary sense. 

But if this is just more divide and conquer, this right-wing, extremist, terrorist stuff is a big play. It makes me wonder if it wouldn't be a tactical move to rethink playing into that hand. 

Quoting stormcris:

I must say this is kinda point set match ....no one would have believed the REX 84 agenda was ever authorized by congress if it had gotten out at that time either. Funny thing is they authorized it during four presidencies(two of those were democrats). I love hearing why would they want to kill grandma, or about how the angry mobs are nuts. Yet, they use this smoke screen to pass a much worse bill. People bring up death panels were written by Republicans...OK so you don't think that if they wrote it once before and this bill is manufactured off that bill it might not be in there under some sense? I do not care if people want to call it a conspiracy I sit back and laugh every day that they are quick to say Washington is corrupt but yet defend the words they spew about bills. Can we really trust them to tell us the truth when they are constantly authorizing things like REX 84 and just remember Waxman was in Congress then too.


blondekosmic15
by on Aug. 16, 2009 at 5:59 PM

Obama & his Socialist advisors are very good @ deception so why would any fair minded decent American not discern this. Barack made a career of throwing ppl. under the bus so to speak that failed to enhance his political career { Rev. Wright for ex. } He's a master @ hiding his agenda { notorious for windy city politicians } & comes across as very charismatic & charming which are primary attributes of deception! NHC is just another step toward dominating the personal lives of millions of Americans who thirst for change...w/ out truly realizing the underlying intentions involved here~

PamR
by Pam on Aug. 16, 2009 at 6:04 PM

Which of Obama's advisors are Socialists?

What is the agenda that is being hidden?

Are all charming and charismatic people deceptive?

What are the underlying intentions and how will the dominate our personal lives?

margroc
by on Aug. 16, 2009 at 6:07 PM

pull up a chair Pam and pour yourself a cocktail cause you're gonna be waiting and waiting for an answer and when you do get a response you still won't get an answer 

Quoting PamR:

Which of Obama's advisors are Socialists?

What is the agenda that is being hidden?

Are all charming and charismatic people deceptive?

What are the underlying intentions and how will the dominate our personal lives?


“The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.” - Pierre E. Trudeau
PamR
by Pam on Aug. 16, 2009 at 6:11 PM

Anyone care for a virtual Margarita?

For once, I would like specifics - specific parts of this bill that will do the bad bad bad evil evil evil socialist windy city type no-goodness that our blonde angelic friend is so afraid of.

margroc
by on Aug. 16, 2009 at 6:16 PM

margaritas are my fav!  We can toast to the mystery of the socialist agenda. I've been asking her forever and the "answer" I got was her turning the question around on me! Jeesh, just thinking about it - I may need a double

margarita time

Quoting PamR:

Anyone care for a virtual Margarita?

For once, I would like specifics - specific parts of this bill that will do the bad bad bad evil evil evil socialist windy city type no-goodness that our blonde angelic friend is so afraid of.


“The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.” - Pierre E. Trudeau
PamR
by Pam on Aug. 16, 2009 at 6:28 PM

Anyone care to read some facts?


Obama wants to kill your grandma

Five right-wing myths about healthcare reform, and the facts

By Mike Madden


Aug. 6, 2009 | WASHINGTON -- Turning America socialist apparently wasn't enough for him -- now President Obama is trying to make old people kill themselves, callously deny important medical procedures, funnel tax dollars to abortion clinics and wiggle the government's way into every doctor's office in America.

At least, that's the sense you might have about the healthcare reform proposals Congress is considering from listening to opponents describe them. Already, conservative activists have erupted against the plan, with protesters hanging Democratic lawmakers in effigy and disrupting town hall meetings.

As both the House and the Senate clear out of the Capitol for the month, expect the viral buzz -- and the TV battle  -- about what's in the bills to grow louder and louder. The White House finally seems to have realized that the administration can't win the policy debate without addressing some of the attacks from the right. Aides recently released a video rebutting some of the claims about what healthcare reform would and wouldn't do. An administration official told Salon Wednesday that the White House will soon launch a Web site modeled on the "Fight the Smears" site Obama's campaign ran last fall, where voters can find -- and debunk -- some of the rumors about the reform proposals, and the White House is already collecting chain e-mails at "flag@whitehouse.gov," an address Obama aides set up to receive them.

But the administration might already be behind the curve. Over the last few weeks, opponents have managed to get out their spin on the bill through talk radio, blogs, chain e-mails and other channels. And their talking points depend on a notably elastic approach to the truth. Here's a fact check of some of the more alarming claims that the right is making about healthcare reform, claims that are already hardening into myth.


Myth 1: Democrats want to kill your grandmother. This claim seems too outlandish on its face to get much traction, but Republicans actually made some headway on it recently. Two House GOP leaders put out a statement warning that the healthcare reform bill "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia." To hear opponents of reform talk about it, the legislation would force seniors to go in for sessions once every five years -- and more frequently if they're sick -- where doctors will encourage them to end their lives. Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., summarized the scare tactic pretty well on the House floor last week, when she said the bill would "put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government," and therefore, wouldn't be pro-life. The GOP has pushed this line especially hard with some of the conservative groups behind the government's intervention in the Terri Schiavo case a few years ago, hoping to get antiabortion allies on board fighting reform. "Can you imagine the response of the American people when they find this out?" one-time GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson asked about the alleged euthanasia scheme on his radio show last month. "They're going to counsel you on preparing you to die," Rush Limbaugh pronounced a few weeks ago. Proof of how far this attack has spread came last week, when a caller to an AARP forum asked Obama about it directly. (Probably unwisely, the president tried to make light of the question, saying there weren't enough government employees to go meet with old people to talk about end-of-life care.)

There is a kernel of truth at the root of this attack: The legislation would order Medicare to pay for consultations between patients and doctors on end-of-life decisions, which it currently doesn't cover. But the consultations wouldn't be mandatory; if your grandmother doesn't want to go talk to her doctor about end-of-life care, she won't have to. Because Medicare doesn't pay for this kind of planning now, only 40 percent of seniors who depend on the government insurance say they have an advance directive that tells healthcare providers what measures they do and don't want used to prolong their life, even though 75 percent say they think it's important. The lack of planning actually costs a lot of money. Medicare spends billions and billions of dollars annually on expensive treatment during the last year of a dying patient's life. Without allowing Medicare to pay for end-of-life consultations, it's hard to know whether patients even want to go to such expensive lengths.

Myth 2: The government -- i.e., you -- will have to pay for abortions. This is another way the GOP is stirring up antiabortion activists against healthcare reform -- by warning that your tax dollars will be used to pay for someone else's abortion. An ad by the Family Research Council dramatizes the issue about as creepily as possible. "To think that Planned Parenthood is included in the government-run healthcare plan and spending tax dollars on abortions," a distraught older man tells his wife, sitting at their kitchen table after opening a letter from the government. "They won't pay for my surgery, but we're forced to pay abortions." The narrator lays out what's going on: "Our greatest generation denied care, our future generations denied life." A House Republican aide says the GOP thinks this could be the most potent type of viral attack against reform, since antiabortion Democrats will have trouble voting for the legislation if it includes taxpayer funding for the procedure.

But only the most extreme antiabortion reading of the legislation would say it does that. The words "Planned Parenthood" and "abortion" don't appear anywhere in the text, despite conservative buzz that it would funnel millions of dollars to killing babies. (A proposal in the Senate version of the reform legislation would require insurance plans to cover preventive care and screening visits to community health providers, which could include Planned Parenthood.) Even an AP story that Matt Drudge was hyping on Wednesday as proof that the government would be funding abortions didn't go quite that far -- instead, the story detailed a fight over whether women who buy government-subsidized private insurance through a proposed exchange system should be able to have abortions covered by their plans. Pro-choice lawmakers are trying to craft a compromise that would require insurance companies to pay for abortions out of premiums paid by patients, not out of tax dollars. Pro-choice Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., amended the House version of the legislation to state that abortion is not part of an "essential benefits package" that all insurance plans must provide -- meaning someone could offer a special "pro-life health insurance" plan that doesn't cover abortions, even under the reforms.

Myth 3: Obama will ban all private health insurance. Allegedly, the House proposal for healthcare reform bans private insurance. This rumor comes complete with a citation: "Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal," the unflaggingly pro-business paper Investors Business Daily wrote in an editorial last month. Other right-wing blogs and news outlets picked up on the idea, as well. It fits in with a broader message Republicans have been using: The reform will lead to a total government takeover of healthcare.

The IBD line is literally true -- Section 102 of the House bill says insurance companies can't independently issue any new individual policies after the legislation takes effect (though existing policies are grandfathered in). But it misses the point. Private plans aren't banned, but rather shifted into the new health insurance exchange the legislation would set up. You can still get a private policy, but the way in which you buy it changes. If you wanted to buy your own insurance, you have to do it through the government-run insurance exchange. Your policy becomes part of broader risk pools, which makes the premiums cheaper and keeps insurance companies from dumping them once they get sick. PolitiFact looked into the claim and rated the IBD editorial "pants on fire," its lowest rating -- as in, "Liar, liar, pants on fire."


Myth 4: The government can't possibly run a healthcare program. Opponents of reform trot out comparisons to government services frequently when they try to argue against a public, government-funded healthcare plan. Republicans drew up a chart that purports to show how convoluted the bureaucracy involved in any government plan would be. This message doesn't make Obama the enemy, it makes government inefficiency the enemy. "If you like the Post Office and the Department of Motor Vehicles and you think they're run well, just wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid and healthcare done by the government," conservative economist Arthur Laffer told CNN this week.

If that doesn't quite make sense, there's a reason -- Medicare and Medicaid are, of course, government-run healthcare programs. Medicare in particular is quite popular; polling shows some seniors are anxious that the reform will affect the care they already get from the government. (In fact, Democratic pollster Celinda Lake says she frequently encounters voters who say they want to keep the government out of their Medicare.) The Department of Veterans Administration also runs a healthcare system that experts praise for its well-developed health information technology network, which lets doctors see results of tests and procedures any patient has had anywhere in the network -- eliminating the wasteful duplication that Obama says he wants to cut out of the larger healthcare world, as well.

Myth 5: Unlike private insurance, government bureaucrats will ration care. This line also makes government the enemy. "You may want healthcare that your doctor has prescribed for you," Peter Ferrara, of the anti-tax, anti-government Institute for Policy Innovation, wrote on the National Review last month. "But the rationing bureaucracy in Washington that doesn’t even know you, or your doctor, may decide that your doctor doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or that you are too old for the government to pay for your hip replacement to stop the pain, or to get an expensive triple bypass or a pacemaker operation to save your life." Since the Obama administration keeps talking about encouraging doctors to shift to outcome-based pay scales and evidence-based guidelines for what treatments or procedures to use, opponents don't have much trouble painting a troubling picture of faceless government hacks denying the care you -- or your loved ones -- need.

Of course, there are already plenty of faceless hacks denying people care right now; they just work for private insurance companies, not the government, and they're denying care because that helps keep the insurers' profit margins up. At a recent House hearing, just three insurance companies testified that they had "rescinded" -- or dropped -- coverage for nearly 20,000 patients between 2003 and 2007, often after patients had submitted claims they thought would be covered. Even Republicans seem to know the insurance companies can be bad. "I would always rather the devil I know than the devil I don't know," House GOP boss John Boehner said last week, explaining why going after the government works even though private insurance companies would seem to be just as much of a villain. 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured