Ever since Barack Obama was elected President, Fox News has endeavored to sabotage his administration with insults and brazenly dishonest characterizations of his policies. They have referred to him as lazy, ignorant, and ineffectual, while simultaneously portraying him as a persistent, evil, genius, working hard and successfully at destroying the country.
Setting aside the obvious paradox in those contrasting descriptions, one of Fox’s proudest achievements was the labeling of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as “ObamaCare.” It was an attempt to hang the legislation that was a product of a fractured congress around the President’s neck, and was clearly meant derogatorily. The President later adopted the name as an affirmation that he does indeed care about Americans having access to health care. However, now Fox is pretending that “ObamaCare” is some sort of official title, and that avoidance of it is tantamount to a snub.
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook
The absurdity of this criticism is mind-boggling on multiple levels. First of all, the name “ObamaCare” was the creation of the President’s foes and is in no way official. It would be like expecting GOP-controlled states to call their photo-ID laws, the Voter Suppression Act (although that, at least, would be accurate).
Secondly, the fact that states are creating names like MNsure, Vermont Health Connect, California Covered, etc., is evidence that refutes one of the biggest Tea-publican myths about the ACA – that it is a big-government, federally controlled program. In fact, the ACA is just an insurance reform that permits states to create their own system of exchanges that offer health coverage to people who cannot get it from their employer or other private provider.
The ACA’s exchanges are entirely implemented at the state level, which is something that conservatives ought to be celebrating. Instead, they invent lies about Washington intruding on the jurisdiction of the states. But this complaint about how the states name their programs is an ironic example of the right inadvertently admitting their own lies. The states obviously have the right to control their own affairs, and if they choose not to use a name that was invented by anti-health care activists, it is within their power to do so.
It is notable that this epically idiotic article is the product of Fox News, not its lie-riddled affiliate Fox Nation (whose dishonesty is documented in Fox Nation vs. Reality). And the embarrassment of an allegedly serious news operation spewing such nonsense is even more pronounced when Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal is cited as the source for the story. The Journal included a couple of telling examples of insurance consumers. One was a rather moronic Tea-publican who was opposed to his own self-interests:
“The all-Minnesota marketing of the insurance plan didn’t persuade Andrew De Jong, a 25-year-old volunteer in the Minnesota Republican Party’s state-fair booth who said he currently works at a ‘bunch’ of part-time jobs that don’t offer him insurance. He said he has no plans to look for coverage on MNsure because he opposes Obamacare.”
What a brainiac. He would reject even exploring potentially valuable benefits because of his anti-Obama indoctrination. And then there was the liberal who made quite a bit more sense based on actual facts:
“Mr. Schauer, a part-time student, also works part-time as a park-and-water patrolman at the Dakota County Sheriff’s office, where he doesn’t qualify for employer-based health insurance. He said he broke his arm last winter in a snowboarding accident and was motivated to keep coverage. The MNsure calculator estimated he would pay about $65 a month for coverage with tax credits. ‘I figured it would be higher,’ he said.”
The summations by these two prospective health insurance consumers pretty much says it all. Conservatives blindly reject things they’ve been told to reject without any thoughtful consideration. Liberals weigh the facts and arrive at conclusions that best meet their needs.
As for Fox News, they just continue to make up phony issues and disseminate them to their undiscerning audience. Their well established goal is to make ObamaCare fail by discouraging people from enrolling in the exchanges, even if that means they are left unable to seek care if they need it, or driving them into bankruptcy because of their lack of coverage. This was explicitly stated by a Republican quoted in the Wall Street Journal article who said flatly that “We want to keep people out of the exchanges so they will fail.”
Notice that they don’t want to keep people out of the exchanges because they don’t work. They want to keep people out so that the program fails, which, of course, would mean that Americans who choose to participate would be left without options to seek necessary, perhaps life-saving, medical attention. That’s what they must mean by “compassionate conservatism.”
I’m having a difficult time believing that those opposed to Obamacare understand what would happen if we had kept the status quo. It’s not a perfect plan but it’s all the knuckle draggers in congress would allow.
Except for faux ‘Freedom and Liberty’, their leaders have no plan and offer no solutions (except the one the President co-opted from them) to fix the health care problems that the ‘for profit’ industry has afflicted us with. And yet, they will continue, as you say, to oppose their own self interest.
The weak-minded are so easily manipulated. How will they defend the status quo?
With respect to your first paragraph – why does a “fix” always need to include some giant new program. why not TRY to correct the problems we knew existed like pre-existing conditions issues and selling across state lines? Did we really need a giant new program or is that the only way to solve a problem? We don’t need more federal programs, we’re already broke and going into more debt.
Not sure what “faux Freedom and Liberty” refers to – I don’t think progressives know what freedom or liberty even mean so how you even attempt to play with the words is a joke.
My post above was a response to Bigtoe, not a stand alone comment on the article.
Always remember that most of our politicians are in the pocket or are beholden to some entity with money, big money. They have more incentive to look after them than us. Not all, but most. And since this congress is doing even less than the previous congress, to vote on each individual issue would be stretching this congress’ abilities.
A big gov’t program, (and this one in particular which was introduced by the Heritage Foundation, touted by conservatives as a principled argument for ‘you don’t get something for nothing/individual mandate’ health care plan, used by Romney in Mass., and co-opted by Obama for the country,) gets a lot more attention from Americans. We like all the other social benefit programs probably because we’re paying for them and want to, and so far, the private sector hasn’t got a better plan. They’re the reason some form of universal healthcare is necessary.
And this conservative healthcare plan that Obama has tweaked for today is contributing to the dramatic deficit reduction we’re experiencing and the plan hasn’t even been fully implemented.
The ‘Faux Freedom and Liberty’ comment, is as always, commentary on the continual crying wolf by the teapublicans that this president is somehow encroaching on their freedom and liberty. It’s a phrase that all the mushrooms use when they don’t know what to say.
But you already knew that, didn’t you?
“The ‘Faux Freedom and Liberty’ comment, is as always, commentary on the continual crying wolf by the teapublicans that this president is somehow encroaching on their freedom and liberty. It’s a phrase that all the mushrooms use when they don’t know what to say.
But you already knew that, didn’t you?”
It’s not just this president – but everyone like you who just can’t get your head around the idea that we are sovereign – not subjects of the state. I would argue you are more of a mushroom than anyone standing up for their right to live as a free individual and telling the state to piss of, while you cozy up to the trough and feed your face with whatever your government feels is ok for you and the rest of us to have. Oink, Oink – enjoy the meal.
Misspelled – Piss off is correct, not piss of.
“Did we really need a giant new program or is that the only way to solve a problem? We don’t need more federal programs, we’re already broke and going into more debt.” –steve in york
We have elected officials in Congress chomping at the bit to fire Million + dollar cruise missiles in to Syria.
We always seem to have enough money to fund giant federal programs for these types of things. I wonder why that is?
RobJ,
The MIC runs the country. As such there is *always* $$$ for another MOOTW or War but money for SNAP, well that would allow young steak eatin’ bucks built like brick houses to get all uppity and stuff.
Hey RobJ, If you want to go down the path of finding lots to cut – I’m game. But if you want to do that, it’s all on the table, including all social programs. You’ll have no argument from me – I don’t think there is a federal program or department that could be down-sized significantly, including and probably most easily, the defense department.
Sorry- 3rd line mistake – couldn’t be down-sized vs. could.
What would you suggest? We are all ears.
Per your request CS – As with all budgets I’ve had to cut in my career – I would go to the largest line items first – in this case Defense – and go from there. Today defense is huge, in a few years, pensions and health care will be the largest. I would like to see defense reduced to maybe 1/2 its current size and then get into the federal work force next. I would revamp medicare to require a certain amount paid by the beneficiary before medicare would even kick in – say $1000.00 per year per person out of pocket for those who should be able to afford it. It would force some, if only a little, market forces to be introduced which are totally out with the current system. I would redo the pension system – eliminating it for all future hires as pensions are totally unaffordable in their current form. From there, i would cut across the board to get to balance – share the pain equally. Greater changes may be possible if some progress is made, but to just cut out programs would be hard initially – it would probably take a long time to get the people off their dependency on the government.
Let’s take defense first, perhaps the most powerful lobby on earth right up there with banking and pharmaceutical and don’t forget insurance lobbyist. These are the group’s that write the budgets and congress accepts to get their donations to their campaigns and PAC’s. Nothing is more important to the political class than staying in power getting re-elect. I appreciate and agree with your concerns for the country and note that that is where your answer stems from…however that is not the political classes first priority.
Can’t post links. Go to google and search lobbyist writing budgets to congress.
Also search lobbyist writing legislation
Steve, if you cut DOD in half you will be cutting the Federal work force considerably, plus reducing the amount of money sunk into defense-related contracts. But the defense contractor lobbyists and “bring home the pork” politicians – not mention the panic-mongering reactionary media that abets them – will fight tooth and nail every inch of the way. The best thing to really help the nation is to clean out K Street, but what a task that will be.
Given the morale at DHS – or rather the lack of it – many who work under its umbrella would be glad to see its back, too. (I’ve seen this from folks who used to work there but quickly got fed up.) Keep in mind that not every Federal agency is bloated. My agency, which has the mission of being the nation’s record keeper, is understaffed and has been for years. The Park Service and other agencies are in similar straits.
Yes, pensions are expensive; but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Taken to the logical extreme – and this is undoubtedly the goal of some – many would simply be unable to ever retire. If pensions per se are eliminated, then employers should at least provide mechanisms leading to a functional equivalent. If you’re referring specifically to the Federal government, the old retirement system was eliminated years ago. I think some people assume that Feds get their post-employment checks “for free” but I put 20 percent of my pay into retirement funds that have nothing to do with getting a check from a government entity. The government merely provides a mechanism for that to occur (with 5 percent matching to encourage participation).
Our government could use some shaping up but the standard rhetoric of downsize and cut never seems to address the real problem. Our government is by and for the moneyed interests. There are allot of the departments and programs that our oh so dedicated to us elected officials tell is really need to be cut in order to save us from the impending doom. Yet these very same programs are the profit centers for lots of corporate and special interests that our caring elected officials are beholden to. Aside from the bellowing that they routinely do to make sound bites that we devour with starved gusto, what self-serving, er I mean ‘respecting’ elected official would cut off their financial trough?
SURE, steve in york, let’s play; let’s make a LIST.
1. Slice defense in half, close as many overseas bases as needed to do so; bring our troops home.
2. Dissolve Homeland Security/TSA; now THAT’S a bloated, unworkable bureaucracy.
3. Congressional salaries capped at 3x minimum wage; all the perks, the free gyms/cafeterias/barber shops, etc. — gone. Let ’em all get Obamacare, too. . .after all, they DID say it was good enough for the American people.
4. Foreign aid STOPS. Face it, we’re pissing in the wind with that, it gets intercepted all up and down the line.
5. Change the law that requires a totally separate/non-compatible design for any and everything the gov’t buys for its use — it’s the source for the $10K toilet seats…. Forbid cost overruns in gov’t contracts; you build it for what you SAID you’d build it for, or give the f’n money BACK, so we can find someone who will.
6. Contractors will ALSO have term limits, they can only do business with the fed gov’t for so long, then they’re out of the pool.
7. Outlaw lobbyists as they exist now; ANYONE that comes to a member of gov’t with w/ a check in hand is a criminal.
You have more to add?
Your ‘suggestion’ about ‘entitlements’ is dangerous ground; Social Security has been called an ‘entitlement’ by the GOPigs for years now, they’ve been against it for its entire existence. But WE PAY INTO THAT DIRECTLY, THAT’S OUR MONEY. THAT’S not what the GOPigs call an ‘entitlement’, it IS A TRUE ENTITLEMENT, WE ARE ENTITLED TO WHAT WE PAY FOR.
I didn’t see your list until I finished some of mine – it’s a start – I like #1 and #2…it gets pretty complicated as we get deeper.