CTA Doomsday Schedule: Day 2
As Pace Struggles, CTA Claims "No Major Delays" After Doomsday Day One
Calumet Fisheries Wins James Beard Award
How To: Roast a Chicken (If You're an Idiot)
30 Percent Chance Of Hailey
Mark Kirk, Illinois's 10th District Congressman and GOP front runner for the state's U.S. Senate seat, has been been trying to get in front of conservative rage at Obama lately. Earlier this month he held a press conference in a downtown Chicago federal building (in his capacity as a U.S. Congressman) to denounce the House version of the proposed health care reform legislation. Then, he called the bill partisan and expensive, and cited medical malpractice reforms as the key to cutting costs. This week he's upped the ante, lying about the details of the proposed legislation. "Should we provide taxpayer health care for people who are illegally here in the U. S.? I do not think we should provide federally-subsidized health care to illegal aliens," Kirk asked the crowd before rhetorically answering his own question. He failed to mention that the proposed legislation doesn't actually offer health insurance coverage for those in the United States illegally.
Kirk's pattern of lying to voters doesn't end with the health care debate, though. He's been claiming that the proposed legislation would cut $160 billion from Medicare, the popular social program that protects seniors from outlandish healthcare costs. That number comes from proposals in the legislation that would cut payments to insurance companies that participate in Medicare, reduce costly and preventable hospital readmissions and make access to preventative medicine more affordable. He's also been using out of date figures to tell voters that tort reform and large insurance pools - rather than a federally subsidized public option for people that can't otherwise access or afford insurance - will lead to significant reductions in the cost of health care. The numbers he cites, health insurance costs of $2,565 per patient in California, where lawsuits are restricted and premiums are heavily regulated and $5,326 in New Jersey, which has neither, are closer to $4,000 in California, and just under $5,000 in New Jersey.
Maybe when you have access to affordable federally subsidized health care for you and your family, as Congressman Mark Kirk does, you can afford to scare seniors and working people. It might not be good for the people of Illinois, but it's good for whipping up voters that might not otherwise be as excited about your candidacy.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Thanks for calling out this clown. The traditional media certainly hasn't been.
Republicans use their excuse of being so concerned for the fiscal health of the country and how nationalized health care is going to bring it down.
I propose then, that every partisan hack in the GOP who is so concerned about the money, give their health plans to all of us without health plans and let them live a few years with no health insurance.
They really need to walk a mile in another man's shoes.
Why is he lying? Because lies are all the GOP has to fight this fight. They can't defend the insurance companies practices, so they make up bull about death panels and forced sex changes and "illegals" stealing all our health care and taking it back to Mex-E-Co.
Whenever the right talks about "illegal aliens" (distancing language, making them the other) remember that they want to do NOTHING to stop businesses from hiring these people. Oh no, it's all about raids and round-ups and hard-line tactics. But the businesses get off with fines and wagged fingers. Because the dirty truth is, illegal immigrant is a huge boost to the economy and it keeps prices low on everything form produce to clothing.
Typical race-baiting bullshit from the GOP. The kind of nonsense that is marginalizing their party.
I'm a little surprised to see him play the "illegal aliens are BAD!" card so early, especially since that's been working so well for the Republican party in Illinois recently (cough)Oeberweiss(cough)Pulido(cough).
What's even sadder is that either he doesn't understand, or more likely, he doesn't think his constituents can understand, that we're already paying for medical care for illegals. If they get hurt or really sick, they go to an emergency room, and get treated. Those costs aren't just eaten by the hospitals and doctors.
Problem is, the Obama administration, and the Democrats in general, have done an AWFUL job of explaining the various options in a simple, clear and non-terrifying manner. Most people are confused by insurance (because insurance companies profit from confusion and fear) to begin with. You start dropping 1000 page bills and letting simplifying scare mongers like Palin and Beck and Limbaugh tear at it...well.
Look, Obama could go on TV, all Ross Perot style, and use this chart. Simple, clean, easy to read. Keep repeating it, get every goddamn democrat repeating it, bury the GOP in simple, straight-forward facts.
Vampires fear sunlight.
I gave that chart to my boss, who was kind of on the fence on health care reform. His eyes lit up when he saw it, "Why didn't they say this to start with?"
Why indeed.
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/4967/outrageous.jpg
Leftcagoist, you are exceeding your daily allotment of liberal writing.
If you want to run a website that has some semblance of journalistic balance, you should not have articles like this one.
So, what's your solution to 50 million people without health care?
Cutting taxes for rich people? Deregulating health care? Maybe the poor could each be issues a sharp piece of glass and invited to a national "Thunderdome". The winner gets a lower deductible.
Honestly, what's the solution from the right on health care? Beside fear-mongering and lying?
+1 to this. I'm hardly a Kirk fan, but the hatred is really boiling over here.
One thing I never understand about Chicagoans is how they can have Daley as mayor, Stroger as county president, Blagojevich as gov (formerly), and Burris as senator yet still be overwhelmingly Democratic. Having two or even three/four parties with people in office might make officials actually work hard for their constituents, since they will know their job is not a birthright.
The Machine has been running Chicago politics for nigh on 50 years. From ward re-mapping, to paying off the Revs in the black community (which has an ever decreasing number of voters even as their percentage remains the same) to simply folding any potential challengers (Bobby Rush, JJJ into "the family) Daleys have been snookering Chicago since before many of us were born. He didn't even debate the challengers in the last 2 elections. Stroger comes from the same cesspool, Burris too. They're not democrats, they're a racket.
Imagine it as a game of black jack, the dealer is Penn Jillette, and he's using a deck with blank cards and you are blindfolded, in the dark.
+1 to this. I'm hardly a Kirk fan, but the hatred is really boiling over here.
One thing I never understand about Chicagoans is how they can have Daley as mayor, Stroger as county president, Blagojevich as gov (formerly), and Burris as senator yet still be overwhelmingly Democratic. Having two or even three/four parties with people in office might make officials actually work hard for their constituents, since they will know their job is not a birthright.
That's why I vote against both Democrats and Republicans. Neither party offers anything worthwhile in Illinois.
Good defense of Kirk's lies, Ward Up. I'm totally convinced.
I know this has been mentioned here before, but I find the most annoying part of the right its tendency to come up with strange nicknames like "Leftcagoist" under the strange notion that these names are clever. It just turns me off to whatever argument might follow. The right has an extremely pedestrian sense of humor, which is why they'll never pull off their own Daily Show.
Indeed,
Snide, juvenile, faux cleverness.
To be fair, so called 'liberals' (errr. center right democrats in reality) engage in this too, but not as much I would say. Saying stuff like 'libtards' or 'Chimpy McFlightsuit' is pretty much holding up a sign saying: I've got *nothing* of worth to add to this discussion.
Ward Up,
A lie is a lie is a lie.
It doesn't matter what Kirk's political affiliation is. He is lying about the contents of the health care bill.
Fair and balanced doesn't mean pretending a blatant lie is just another point of view. Democratic politicians get called out all the time on this site for their BS.
No one can say for certain because the final bill is not passed, if it ever passes, but there are provisions in play to cover illegal aliens. Kirk is not lying about that.
His big problem is that he voted for Cap and Tax.
What's even sadder is that either he doesn't understand, or more likely, he doesn't think his constituents can understand, that we're already paying for medical care for illegals. If they get hurt or really sick, they go to an emergency room, and get treated. Those costs aren't just eaten by the hospitals and doctors.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner. I hear so many arguments regarding so many issues that rely on the false assumption that whatever it is that the arguer doesn't want isn't already happening.
Fairly certain Daley, Burris, Blago, et al, have been lampooned on this site ad nauseum. I see nothing wrong in calling out this buffoon for peddling blatant lies.
The public option is a bad idea. It will NOT enhance competition among private insurers. It will foul the water with an inefficient government-run, botched health plan.
All the fish (private insurers) in the water need to compete. We do need reform in order to enhance this competition. If they are made to compete, we will see much less rationing than would occur with a government-run plan.
And please recognize that rationing will occur, if only due to the inefficiency of any government-run system.
Best way to make your argument? put one word in ALL CAPS to make us think it's a FACT.
You're right, WardUp, it would be harder for the private insurer fish to make a profit with a public option. Probably best, then, to just go all single-payer and be done with it.
And please recognize that rationing already does occur with the current system, if only due to the profit-motive that is built in to our backwards for-profit system.
We could demonize "government-run" health care all day, but that's simply not the crust of the absolutely CENTRIST proposal that's out there right now. And the rationing term rings so hollow when 45 million-ish American's are running around without any. This isn't about forcing anyone to a public option. It's about insuring the uninsured, and lowering costs.
I'm a veteran. And I have nothing bad to say about the health care I received during my eight years of active-duty. Certainly no "death-books" to speak of. (Jury's still out on the VA, though.)
Would rather have inefficient affordable care than none at all. amirite?
you are rite!
Rationing already occurs. Insurance companies wouldn't be able to make a profit otherwise.
Which I think is the largest of the many problems currently affecting the system, and which is a problem the free market simply can not address. There are many, many people denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions, and insurance drops many others when they get sick. Insurance does this because covering these people simply is not economical ... any statistical analysis that includes the expenses these people bring will bleed money. If this weren't the case and insurance companies could make money off these people, they'd already be covered.
Any option that forces private insurance companies to cover these people will either drive these companies out of business or will drive premiums through the roof. The only solution, then, for these people is a public option borne by taxpayers rather than private industry. I would think any insurance actuaries would took the time to do that math would agree ... though I welcome any actuaries floating around here who can prove me wrong.
Come on blue, the 'market' can fix any problem! Look at how well it fixed our parking meters. Maybe we can hire LAZ to run our health care too.
Seriously though,
Treating the health of your citizenry as commodity to be bought and sold in the market place (like goods or property) isn't only ridiculous and unfeasible, it's immoral. The end.
I agree on principal, though I also acknowledge that our culture is far too committed to our market economy for us to accept a more rational solution any time soon. I personally believe that it will be forced on us in a generation or so, but we're not there yet, so unless you take the market into account, you'll never get anywhere. As such, I think we need to point out the places where the market economy is obviously flawed even by the standards of free market fans.
People are being told and accepting too many lies. UK for example, has universal healthcare in the form of the NHS, but a person is quite free to pay for private medical service any time they like. People here seem to think that a universal option would *ban* any kind of private service.
"It will NOT enhance competition among private insurers. It will foul the water with an inefficient government-run, botched health plan."
What part of the word "option" do you fail to understand? If the public plan is inefficient, I have the choice of going back to my disgusting, bureaucratic, overpriced, inefficient Blue Cross plan.
If the public option is better than private insurers and drives them out of business, it's the private companies' fault for sucking.
Side note: have you noticed that BCBS of IL exercised their ability to double the hight of their building north of Grant Park? Perhaps the analysts who suggested doing so know a bit more than the average blog commenter about what's coming down the pipe?
In doubling the height of the building, BCBS is going to rent it out, much of it to lawyers.
I think it's Baker & McKenzie that wants to rent a whole bunch of floors there.
doubling the BCBS building will actually save them money in the long run because they rent out office space throughout the city, so not really sure how that helps your argument.
Ward, you sound like the stupid old farts at these town halls screaming about how evil government-run health care is, despite being on Medicare themselves.
I'd say about a quarter of Americans are on government-run health care. It's not just the old and sick on Medicare, it's also anyone with a government job, the entire military, etc. A lot of people. So let's all stop pretending that there is no government-run health care or that what is there doesn't work -- for the most part, it does.
Perhaps what you and others like you really feel but aren't articulating is that you fear that if the government creates a public option, it will gradually tilt the laws so that the government plan wipes out all of the private plans -- over time creating, in effect, a single payer system.
don't most government workers get their insurance thru a national carrier though? not from a nationalized health plan.
Is it because he has received $38,000 in campaign money from the Pharma industry this (2010) election cycle, $113,000 for 2008, $93,000 for 2006, $53,000 for 2004, $49,000 for 2002, and $44,000 for 2000?
Congressmen and senators are entrepreneurs in business solely for themselves. Egomaniacs and power addicts, their goal is to make a lifelong career out of a temporary service. They need money from corporations and interest groups to finance campaigns to stay in office indefinitely. In return, they create or support laws to protect the status quo for these groups, above the interests of ordinary taxpayers not organized enough to mount an electoral challenge.
Kirk, Durbin, all of them.
...the Congressional Research Service (CRS) says this about H.R. 3200, the Obamacare bill approved just before the recess by the House Energy and Commerce Committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA:
"Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange."
CRS also notes that the bill has no provision for requiring those seeking coverage or services to provided proof of citizenship. So, absent some major amendments to the legislation and a credible, concrete enforcement effort in action, looks like the myth on this issue is the one being spread by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et. al.
Tom Berry, you're as good at obfuscation as Mark Kirk is. Section 246 of the very legislation you cited states
In fact, the bill further states in Section 242 that The CRS quote you cite is from a press release issued by a congressional Republican that opposes the health care reform effort, as the Congressional Research Service doesn't generally make their reports public, you can't read the report in its entirety for context.Me? I read the legislation. I trust my own judgment.
zing!
pwnd.
But seriously, that's how it works. Get a million little Tom Berry's out there parroting lies and people start to believe.
I'm with Tom Berry on this one. The CRS issued that statement and there are no proactive barriers to an illegal alien obtaining the coverage. IMHO there is no way to settle the matter until the bill progresses to the point of a committee negotiation between the house and senate versions.
As to trust in the government, I do not trust the feds. You might because you work in government. I don't and I am not alone with a legitimate fear that offering more coverage will mean higher costs, no matter what the president claims.
Tom Berry was "pwnd"? I don't think so. Unless getting "pwnd" means having a liberal misstate the facts.
Here's the deal. The House bill does state that illegal immigrants don't get the benefits. However, the SAME House bill does not include any mechanism to VERIFY who is or is not an illegal alien. The effect is that the illegal aliens will get benefits.
It is analogous to states that use E-verify for employment versus those that do not use E-verify. All states have laws against employing illegal aliens. However, it is only the states with E-verify where that law can be upheld.
Who has blocked verification in the House health care bill? Democrats, of course. They have blocked the inclusion of a citizenship verification mechanism in the House bill.
Thus, the point that Mark Kirk made is exactly correct. Without inclusion of a mechanism for verification of citizenship status. the EFFECT of the House health care bill is to permit illegal aliens to use the public option.
so you're saying that if an illegal immigrant applied for the national plan coverage that they don't check if they're an American citizen? that doesn't sound right. there is a difference between an employer and a government entity searching this.
That’s quite a strawman you’ve built up there, Ward, so let me knock it down for you. As it stands right now – today, as we type this debate, undocumented aliens receive free health care in the United States, compliments of our system of emergency rooms. That health care is subsidized, either through charity, inflated health care costs for the rest of us, or through government subsidies to hospitals.
The proposed House bill, which is still being negotiated, by the way, explicitly prohibits payment of federal dollars to provide health care to aliens that are not here legally. Although it doesn’t layout a mechanism (such as E-Verify, which by the way is a very effective program), there are other portions of the bill that don’t spell out how things will be verified (like income eligibility). Those decisions tend to be left to the agency to determine, through agency rules.
The bottom line is that Mark Kirk, a U.S. Congressman who is running for a Senate seat, never once said that he’d like to see E-Verify or some other verification mechanism in the bill. Instead he’s implied to voters that the bill in its present form will insure undocumented aliens. I expect a congressman that’s running for the Senate to be well-versed in a significant piece of legislation like this one. So we can conclude one of two things from his statements. Either he he’s too lazy to read it, or too dumb to understand it, or he’s lying about it for political gain. I don’t know Kirk personally, but I don’t believe the former is true.
Regardless, this underscores the need not just for health care reform for the U.S. citizens that make up nearly 80 percent of the uninsured population, but also the need for comprehensive immigration reform. Because even if we require something like E-Verify in the final health care reform bill, undocumented aliens will still be accessing our health care system, through costly and inefficient emergency care centers.
I read somewhere that if all we really wanted to do was to cover illegal aliens, the cost would be only $27bn, not the absurd trillions of dollars that the CBO says that the current mess of a bill would cost over time.
John, it took you three race-baiting posts and you still haven't offered any alternative.
I explained how this works in my response to Ward Up, a few comments above. Until the Republican Party comes up with answers, you guys will be stuck in the political wilderness, chanting "No" to reform and following wild-haired old ladies that believe Barack Obama is an Arab that can't be trusted. That doesn't move me at the ballot box, and if the last national election is any indicator, it doesn't move the majority of the nation.
I think the best thing is for us to continue to pay for emergency room visits for "illegal" immigrants and have sick and unhealthy illegals around our families and children because that is the sign of a great society. Let them get expensive health care solutions because we know that is what they deserve. I'd hate for them to get preventative health care that would lower the cost of the health care provided to them. What are we in the United States, anyway?
Jesus told us to abide by the Golden Rule, but he also said to "Watch out for those illegals!"
Jesus lived an alternative lifestyle.
So Kevin, you have no problem if Republicans call politicians with whom we disagree 'liars'?
Actually, the entire health 'reform' plan as put forth by the Democrats is clearly a lie: the notion that it won't cost any more, that care will be as good or better, that there won't be rationing, that everyone will be covered except illegals, that abortion won't be covered - all pure baloney - and provably so.