Back at it (again).

It has been a while. I worked abroad over the summer and, aside from learning that I really do not appreciate the European attitude towards labor, I also was pretty busy working on numerous projects (wedding, law school, legal periodicals, etc.) However, as this is typically a political blog I will focus on the issue at hand: healthcare reform.

Just as I am back at "it" again, so to is President Obama (again). Last night I listened to one of the most hypocritical and arrogant speeches in quite some time. However, rather than "misrepresenting" the President or spewing ad hominem verbiage, I will compose this post from the President's own words, with my comments after key quotes:

"...[W]e have also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government. Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics."

Mark this down as a minor breakthrough, but I am with President Obama on this one, though probably not in the way he thinks. We should all be about talking through these issues and not relying on stereotypical assertions about political parties. We should have a debate about what will work, rather than simply asserting that others either are (a) ignorant or (b) malevolent. So in this understanding, lets proceed.

"If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out."

Who is this "we" and how do I contact them if I think they are misrepresenting the truth? Do I report my friends and neighbors to the government as the White House encouraged earlier this year? Lacking the ear of the President, I must rely on a lowly blog post (hopefully someone notifies the White House). All this said, shall we apply the same standard to President Obama's own words? Let's call out the many misrepresentations in his speech last night:

"[I]f you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have."

This is simply President Obama being a shady lawyer. The key word he uses is require. The mandate to purchase health insurance obviously doesn't effect those that already have purchased health insurance. Just because individuals are not required to change does not mean that things will not change. Indeed, if reform is to work coverage will necessarily change (or else reform would be pointless). President Obama cannot have it both ways. He cannot assert that we are all part of this system together and then assert in the next breathe that changing the system will not change "the coverage or the doctor you have". This is the power of government, the ability to effect a citizens daily life without a citizen having any say in the matter. It is why we should be very wary of making systemic decisions, lest common citizens lose their voice. In any case, this statement seems like a clear misrepresentation.

"It's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight."

This seems like a pretty clear misrepresentation. Polling suggests that people only favor a public option if you laud the public option before you ask the question. If you ask people directly ("Do you favor a public option administered by the Federal government?"), the majority is opposed to the public option.

"They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be."

The very essence of government healthcare is to offer the same services that insurance companies do at less cost. The reason this is deemed possible is because the Federal government is not concerned with profit, which means that they theoretically can offer services on the cheap. Insurance companies do need to earn a profit, which means that they are at an unfair disadvantage. Over time, people will move to the cheaper system leaving insurance companies without customers. For this very reason, instituting a public option is a means to an eventual end: a single payer system (a monopoly). This is not hyperbole or a scare tactic, it is just common sense economics. The bottom line: the public option doesn't need subsidies to compete unfairly, its very existence is unfair competition. Rather than promoting competition, the most natural end point would then be a single payer, Federally run healthcare system. While that might be a Liberal's dream, there are serious problems with that idea (notably, in the long run, costs increase and services decrease, just like all monopolies). More notably, for present purposes, is that President Obama knows this and is clearly misrepresenting the truth.

"[M]ost of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system – a system that is currently full of waste and abuse."

I have three comments on this statement:

(1) So what are we waiting for? Let's pass these reforms - as everyone is in favor of saving money - and while we saving this money, we can discuss how to spend it (maybe pay off some of that debt we owe China). Why must this idea wait for a comprehensive package?

(2) The reason that we don't pass these reforms now is that it is impossible to know how much money we might save due to cutting down on "waste and abuse". It is a whole lot easier to promise and rely on "projected" cost savings than wait and spend money that actually proves itself available. An interesting facet to this is that in the last year there has been rampant criticism of AIG for relying on projections for their business model. However, we are supposed to believe the projections touted by the Federal government? Historical evidence suggests that the Federal government is not so good at "projections" (see Medicare, Social Security and, most recently, Cash for Clunkers).

(3) Speaking of "projections" how did the cost of this plan suddenly decrease from $1.3 Trillion, the CBO estimate, to $900 Billion, the amount the President cited last night? That seems a little strange, almost like the President is throwing out figures that he figures people won't fact check. Fact check this: You cannot expand health insurance for all and spend less money. Someone will pay for it and, in my opinion, it is a strong bet that it will be the American taxpayer. Stating that we have everything for practically nothing is not just a misrepresentation, it is an impossibility.

"[T]he plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years – less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration."

Is President Obama asserting that two wrongs make a right? Here is his argument in a nutshell: President Bush spent a ton of money on things I considered a bad idea, so I should be able to spend a ton of money on things you consider a bad idea. Is this supposed to convince us? I can see the plotting going on in the White House now, "Yep, we will point to the things they hate and use that hatred to justify our plan." Are we really going to fall for that? Are we still convinced that this is all about "hope" and "change"? This method of argument is simply a political tactic. The President is playing politics rather than having a reasonable debate.

"Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true."

Last, but certainly not least: People. Will. Die. How is this not a scare tactic? How is this seeking a rational conversation about healthcare. Conservatives come to the table, ready to talk about what needs to be done and the response of President Obama is, "unless you agree to my plan, people will die." Is this reasonable? Is this honest? Within the same speech the President has contradicted himself. He calls for a debate without scare tactics and then ends the conversation with a scare tactic!

There are very reasonable, rational and, I would argue, far better alternatives to the President's plan. Unfortunately, the President doesn't seem willing to talk. On one hand he promises conversations, compromise and inclusion. He proclaims that all opinions are on the table. On the other hand, he is the sole arbiter of what will work and anyone who disagrees will be accused of allowing more people to die.

Last night we learned two important things. First, we learned that President Obama is willing to sell the American people a bill of goods. He called for people to stop misrepresenting the truth and then set about misrepresenting numerous facts (as we've just seen). Second, we have learned (again) that "hope" and "change" are merely rhetoric. President Obama creates the rules for everyone else (no misrepresentations, no false promises, no scare tactics) and then decides the rules simply do not apply to him (misrepresentations, impossible promises and threatening that people will die if his plan is not adopted).

Ready for a reasonable and rational debate? Respond below!