Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Obamacrats Unable To Disprove Inconvenient Study, Resort To Smears

Calling the study nasty names won't prove that it's "wrong".

Just as calling millions of dissidents such slur/smear words as teabaggers, Astroturf, racists, mobsters, Nazis, etc., will not prove that they're wrong, either.

Democrats and their allies scrambled on Monday to knock down a new industry-funded study forecasting that Senate legislation, over time, will add thousands of dollars to the cost of a typical policy. "Distorted and flawed," said White House spokeswoman Linda Douglass. "Fundamentally dishonest," said AARP's senior policy strategist, John Rother. "A hatchet job," said a spokesman for Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.
Here they go again, with the pejoratives and smears against inconvenient dissidents.

But the health insurance industry's top lobbyist in Washington stood her ground. In a call with reporters, Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, pointedly refused to rule out attack ads on TV featuring the study, though she said she believed the industry's concerns could be amicably addressed.

At the heart of the industry's complaint is a decision by lawmakers to weaken the requirement that millions more Americans get coverage. Since the legislation would ban insurance companies from denying coverage on account of poor health, many people will wait to sign up until they get sick, the industry says. And that will drive up costs for everybody else.


Ignagni was unequivocal in her support for the PricewaterhouseCoopers conclusions. The company is "a world-class firm" with "a stellar reputation," she said.
Does the Obamacrat Regime want to smear PricewaterhouseCoopers as a liar?

If they do, they better be able to prove it in court!

I also find it odd that the Obamacrats want to ban the insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of illness. This flies in the face of the 'crats' and the Death Panels' apparent agenda of "pulling the plug on Grandma" to save money and ration care in favor of younger, healthier patients. Mathematically and logically, this is what the Obamacare plan would require... no escaping this obvious truth. Too many patients, not enough care for all of them. Not enough money to provide more care, so logically rationing would be a foregone conclusion. I've already seen evidence of rationing in Canada, where we have a socialist healthcare system with inadequate supply to meet the growing demand.

In fact, millions of Canadians don't have a personal physician/family doctor because there's not enough doctors to go around and those that are there are hardly taking new patients. No wonder, therefore, so many go to the ERs or some perfect-stranger-doctor at some afterthought, get-'em-out-quick, assembly-line-style community clinic instead of a family doctor when they have non-emergency problems that still seriously need attention. What choice have they?

I understand that Hitler's Nazis also bullied the business community, which they hated.

No healthcare system can ever be perfect. But just because the current system in America isn't perfect isn't a valid reason to impose a socialist revolution onto it, a revolution that will only make things infinitely worse.

Better to use common sense, and to improve one thing at a time, via prudent, common-sense, proper, easier-to-understand and easier-to-manage incrementalism. America doesn't need monster legislation encompassing so much at once. Besides, a monster bill such as we see before the House/Senate is obviously hard to understand and hard to trust, so is it any wonder that the majority of Americans oppose it? They don't trust the Obamacrat Regime, and rightly so, because, obviously, the Regime is trying to pull a fast one on Americans!

You see, the Obamacrats are too extreme, to revolutionary. Too damn dangerous!