A “government takeover of health care” is back. At least it is in the mind of New Jersey governor Chris Christie. In an interview with talk radio show host Dom Giordano, the governor, who supports Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, dished out strong clues about how Republicans are going to fight the health reform law. The weapon of choice: Frank Luntz’s focus-group tested messages. On the show Christie showed he was in sync with Romney’s defense of the Massachusetts reform law, which Romney’s administration supported and which later became the model for national reform. But to distance himself from the federal law, Romney has said what was good for Massachusetts at the time may not be good for the rest of the country. And Christie has said that what happened in the Bay State “would not be good for New Jersey.”
On the show, Christie urged the president to tell the truth about the reform law. What truth would Christie tell?
I’d say to the president, in Massachusetts, we didn’t propose to raise taxes, as you proposed to raise taxes a trillion dollars to pay for a government takeover of health care…. Ninety-three percent of the people in Massachusetts had private insurance then and have private insurance now. That’s not what’s gonna happen under Obamacare. It’s gonna be a government takeover of health care.
Really, Governor? As Campaign Desk has repeatedly noted, the health reform law does not call for a government takeover of health care. The law simply brings private insurance to people who are uninsured. You know, the kind sold by those giants of the American insurance business—UnitedHealth Group, Blue Cross, Cigna, and Humana—which just posted a large profit gained mostly from selling private Medicare Advantage plans to seniors. Under the health law, uninsured Americans will get private insurance like the rest of us have, but many will get government subsidies to help pay for it—subsidies like farmers get to help with their businesses. Yes, there will be some rules and regulations imposed on insurance sellers—they won’t be able to turn down people who have health conditions, and the states will manage the exchanges or shopping services where policies will be offered by Aetna et al. For doctors and hospitals, it will pretty much be business as usual. That is not a government takeover. The government won’t be offering insurance, or own hospitals or physician practices.
The fact checkers at PolitiFact weighed in on the “government takeover” assertion, reporting that Christie “was repeating a claim that’s been debunked numerous times by various news organizations.” PolitiFact noted that the claim won its 2010 Lie of the Year award. The term “government takeover” has been used so often it has come to frame the political discourse around the health law. Campaign Desk has urged the media to pin down the pols when they use this term, but what happens when reporters or talk show hosts don’t do that? Host Giordano seemed sympathetic to Christie’s claims. “The individual mandate sticks in my craw,” he told listeners.
The politicians continue to use the phrase because it’s effective. A few days ago, the Kaiser Family Foundation released its latest tracking survey, which showed that public support for the law hit an all-time low. Fifty-one percent of the public opposes the law; thirty-four percent supports it. Even Democrats are moving into the oppose column. Some pollsters suggest that Obama and co. didn’t sell the law very well. Perhaps. But the anti-sales job may have been the trump card, despite press efforts to lay out the facts. Perhaps the term “government takeover of health care” is so deeply ingrained in the American psyche that better ways of explaining the real story are needed from the press.
A gov't takeover would have been so much simpler. Instead, Dems passed a "market-based solution" -- that the markets, including insurers, pharma and hospitals are perfectly happy with. But calling it socialism is just too successful to run on for Republicans.
#1 Posted by DD Grayson, CJR on Thu 3 Nov 2011 at 04:27 PM
When discussing serious health reform, it is imperative to make a sharp distinction between the government taking steps to ensure that most Americans have access to health care; and the actual provision of that care to patients. In Obama's Affordable Care Act government does the first - sort of- but most certainly NOT the second. So to speak of a "government takeover" is pure codswallop.
#2 Posted by Ron Hikel, CJR on Thu 3 Nov 2011 at 05:14 PM
Government-mandated health insurance is the first step toward government takeover of health care.
First will be restrictions on qualifying plans... Then will we restrictions on qualifying services... Then will come the "public option".... And then will come single-payer, socialized medicine... Obama's plainly stated goal.
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 3 Nov 2011 at 05:33 PM
"And then will come single-payer, socialized medicine... Obama's plainly stated goal."
Except the conservatives (democrats and republicans) are bribed from ever doing that EVER.
Talk to me when the government is starting to use its position as the major buyer of elderly pharmaceuticals to negotiate better drug prices.
At best, what you can expect from conservative American government is that it will subsidize essential services for the population in a way that will benefit American businesses more than it benefits the beneficiaries or the taxpayer. This is how conservatives deal with all essential needs since they know the electorate won't support leaving people who can't afford them on the curb, so they make the worst of solutions to help the best of campaign contributors.
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 3 Nov 2011 at 07:02 PM
Thimbles wrote: Talk to me when the government is starting to use its position as the major buyer of elderly pharmaceuticals to negotiate better drug prices.
padikiller responds: The government never negotiates better prices for anything. Toliet seats, hammers, pills...
What will it take for commies to understand that putting the government into anything always, always, always makes it more expensive and less efficient?
#5 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 3 Nov 2011 at 09:20 PM
" putting the government into anything always, always, always makes it more expensive and less efficient?"
Because anything more would be a socialist takeover and communism. Market rulez! Yay conservatism!
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 3 Nov 2011 at 11:03 PM
The government has only ONE legitimate function...
To restrict liberty to the minimum extent necessary to maintain the minimum amount of order required to foster a cohesive and safe society.
Government exists to keep people from doing things they want to do, or to force them to do things they don't want to do. All for the sake of order. For regularity.
Now order is undoubtedly necessary, but freedom is paramount. So there is an inherent conflict between these objectives that philosophers have grappled with for ages. Which takes precedence? Order? Or freedom?
America selected freedom, and the Earth is a better planet because of this decision.
Government can't make your boo-boo better. It can't give you free steak dinners or Ho Ho's or Snickers bars. It can't give you a free beach house or a free car. The Government Money Fairy, like the Tooth Fairy, isn't real.
Government is a necessary evil and, as the smart people who made America knew, it should accordingly be limited in scope and constrained with suspicion and fear.
The commies who place faith in Government are misguided, as every single example from history shows unequivocally.
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 12:11 AM
"The government has only p..."
In the padiverse, maybe.
In the real world, democratic government is the means by which the electorate takes collective action. When the people decide to protect the elderly with a single payer health care system, the people make the laws and take the funding required. When the people decide to protect investors from crooked dealers, they make laws, institutions, and enforcers that made the market safe, transparent, and desirable to investors. When the people decide to protect environments and improve job conditions, they make regulations, set standards, and compell businesses to observe those standards.
But to conservatives, the ONE legitimate function is to be asleep while the business men do business"
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 05:05 AM
Thimbles wrote: When the people decide to protect the elderly with a single payer health care system [they limit the freedom of people to decide what type of medical care is best for them], the people make the laws and take the funding required. When the people decide to protect investors from crooked dealers [they limit the freedom of people to make investment decisions], they make laws, institutions, and enforcers that made the market safe, transparent, and desirable to investors. When the people decide to protect environments and improve job conditions [they limit the freedom of people to operate businesses or to accept employment], they make regulations, set standards, and compell businesses to observe those standards.
padikiller responds: Yep...
That's what they do, alright.
And when the people decide to elect a single-party system and appoint a benevolent dictator to make decisions for them, they do so. And when the people decide that slavery is OK, they do so. And when the people decide that everyone should wear a government-issued gray suit and get 700 grams of rice per day, they do so (until the inevitable famine, that is). And when the people decide that dissidents should be shot or reeducated, they do so.
You speak here of the "people" making decisions.... But your commie premise (perfectly illustrated here) is that the "people" are too stupid to make their own decisions. Too stupid to decide whether or not to buy health insurance. Too stupid to enter into a contract to buy a car. Too stupid to take a job on their own without the gubmint meddling in the process. Etc.
The exact word you used to describe these people was "suckers".
You'd have us believe that the very "people" - the so-called "suckers" you claim are too stupid to sign a contract for a used car are simultaneously smart enough to run a country, as long as they give up their freedom in the process, by putting a commie in charge of things to look after them.
This is the commie hypocrisy, illustrated.
#9 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 08:06 AM
Trudy Lieberman, the same lady who has made clear her belief that what's best for patients is subordinate to the collective good of the "system" (whatever that is supposed to mean), would have us believe that the 159 new federal regulatory boards, offices and commissions created by Obamacare have no real power - they don't mean anything.
Of course, anyone with a few functioning neurons can see past this silly commie position.
#10 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 08:18 AM
Hey CJR, when does boring, repetitive commenting cross the line into spam?
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 10:47 AM
Three posts ago.
#12 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 11:37 AM
LOL..
I post the irrefutable truth - namely that Thimbles believes that the "people" are too stupid to be permitted to enter into contracts to buy cars, but then also claims (when the argument suits him) that these same "suckers" (his descriptor) are fully capable of running a country...
And all we get in reply is the standard commie call for censorship?
Too, too funny.
#13 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 12:01 PM
Seriously CJR, when does boring, repetitive commenting cross the line into spam?
#14 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 01:55 PM
The nice thing about using the terms commie and socialism when trying to make an argument is that it spares the writer the messy and time-consuming task of actual thinking.
#15 Posted by Gregor, CJR on Sat 5 Nov 2011 at 10:00 PM
@Gregor - You are dancing around the Reality I posted - Namely that Obamacare creates no fewer than 159 new federal commissions, offices and boards and endows them with all kinds of regulatory authority.
And the commie/liberals would have us believe that this law is not a power grab by the government.
#16 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 6 Nov 2011 at 08:02 AM
"You are dancing around the Reality I posted - Namely that Obamacare creates no fewer than 159 new federal commissions, offices and boards and endows them with all kinds of regulatory authority."
If you've got a problem with Obamacare, you should talk to the industries and their lobbyists who wrote the law.
#17 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 6 Nov 2011 at 04:51 PM
Thimbles wrote: If you've got a problem with Obamacare, you should talk to the industries and their lobbyists who wrote the law.
padikiller responds: The problematic people are the ones who enacted Obamacare. Thankfully, their days in power are almost certainly numbered.
Unless some huge unforeseen event transpires to keep the Dems in business, there will be a GOP landslide next year and maybe this time the GOP will actually stop the commie madness.
#18 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 07:39 AM
I call bullshit on the "159 new boards and commissions" allegation.
#19 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 10:44 AM
Ignorance is not only bliss, but apparently also a commie's best friend.
Here are the new bureaucracies created by Obamacare (all 159 of them):
http://www.saveyourrights.com/government-control/the-new-labyrinthine-bureaucracy-of-obamacare-159-new-ones-to-streamline-and-decrease-cost-of-healthcare/
#20 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 11:52 AM
Padi:
First, I would respectfully suggest that name calling is unworthy of you.
Next, I went to your link and paged down the list of "new programs".
I picked one that sounded fishy: the CDC's Office of Women's Health. Googling that phrase leads you to search results that include the CDC's official website, where you will find this:
In 1994, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) established the Office of Women's Health (OWH) to promote and improve the health, safety, and quality of life for women.
So I check one, and discover that either the right wing's definition of "new" is extraordinarily creative, or that the list is just a trifle suspect. (I think my characterization of that list as being a right wing creation is a fair one. Certainly the site you linked us to fits that definition.)
So you will excuse me if I forgo checking the rest of your list. I the first entry I research is a fake, that's enough for me. The list is bullshit.
#21 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 12:47 PM
"Unless some huge unforeseen event transpires to keep the Dems in business, there will be a GOP landslide next year and maybe this time the GOP will actually stop the commie madness."
Because conservatives are less inclined to let industry write policy. *points finger at ear, rotates finger* You realize that this was the conservative solution to health care, Romney's and Heritage's solution to be specific? You know these are the same conservatives who rammed Medicare Part d down America's throat after lying about the costs and holding open the voting for the bill, hours after it should have closed, until they could break enough arms to get it passed. Wake up from your little fantasy.
The problem with American government today isn't that it's too "commie". The problem with American government today is that it interprets its mandate "to serve the public" as a mandate "to serve the public company". It's a bipartisan problem that only gets worse, with minor exceptions, as you move further right.
#22 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 01:05 PM
From the Obamacare text:
‘‘SEC. 310A. CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
OFFICE OF WOMEN’S HEALTH.
‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established within the Office
of the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
an office to be known as the Office of Women’s Health (referred
to in this section as the ‘Office’). The Office shall be headed by
a director who shall be appointed by the Director of such Centers.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf
Obamacare establishes the office and appoints the Director of the office as an HHS committee board member.
#23 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 02:55 PM
Padi:
Since that office already exists, does it count towards the list of "new" ones?
#24 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 04:55 PM
Of course it "counts".
Making a statutory office with new statutory duties isn't changed by the fact that an existing office has the same name (if that is in fact the case).
Especially when the statute places the director of the office on an HHS committee whose stated primary mission is "to develop and impact national health policy...".
http://www.womenshealth.gov/about%2Dus/mission%2Dhistory%2Dgoals/
#25 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 05:14 PM
Padi:
And here's another one!
Your rightie website says the creation of an FDA Office of Women's Health is a "new office".
And yet:
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OC/OfficeofWomensHealth/default.htm
Also established in 1994.
Hmmm. I am detecting a trend here!
#26 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 05:40 PM
Padikiller against the field, as usual. A lot of the proponents of Obamacare (less popular than ever, according to polling) play a sort of rhetorical game that I associate with Trudy Leiberman - 'it's not socialism or a government takeover (but so what if it leads to that, and what's wrong with that?)'.
I would suggest without getting a lot of people in a lather that we have 'free and universal' K-12 education, too, and now have heavy federal participation in the financing of higher education. The costs of both have risen with the degree of federal involvement, without any comparable improvement in quality so far as that can be measured. As for federal effectivenss at controlling costs, don't even ask.
It would be good if the proponents of Obamacare announced what their own limits would be - when they would decide that more political management of health care reaches what they would regard as a diminishing return. I suspect the answer will be 'never'. That's why the charges that Obamacare is a prelude to more and more administration by the usual collaboration between the politicians and the private plans stays alive. Why is this controversial? A lot of the above posters end up refuting Leiberman's point. Many influential activist Democrats are quite open about their desire for a complete political takeover of health care. (The government already accounts for about half of every health care dollar.)
If attempts to reform Social Security lead to charges than many in the GOP would eventually like to abolish it - an accepted commonplace in our political discourse, and a legitimate question - then it is a legitimate question to ask exactly how far the Left wants to go with political control of health care. Again, why is it so far out to raise the question? Leiberman seems to have a cow every time it comes up, but has no trouble questioning ultimate GOP intentions about Social Security. Skewing, and bad journalism, it's all in the choice of issues and framing of them. CJR provides a daily example with very few out-of-the-box exceptions.
#27 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 8 Nov 2011 at 08:21 PM