Lately, the birthers, teabaggers and all-around mouth-breathers have been working 24/7 to slime Democrats around the country. Their strategy? Hold “town hall” meetings about “socialized medicine” where various gasbags are planted throughout the audience to scream and disrupt. Include a faux panel of right-wing physicians, often paid for by the insurance lobby, while pretending everything is fair, balanced and debate-like.
Read about the smear campaign here and here.
A woman named Dawn Tweet Wharton, promoting a panel of physicians opposed to health reform bills, has been begging John Yarmuth to attend her town hall. David Adams, Rand Paul’s campaign staffer, has been working night and day to invite people to the event via Facebook. All while attacking Yarmuth for refusing to attend. Because, uh, who in their right mind would show up to an event that’s a set-up?
Wharton and Adams have tried to spin their way through this mess by suggesting it’s a non-partisan event with no particular bent. But that dog won’t hunt.
Especially while David Adams is publicly making statements like this one:
just heard U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth deny ObamaCare is just a ruse to introduce single-payer socialized medicine. He should check with Obama.
Thanks to the Twitter Machine.
Lest one continue to think that’s all Adams had to say or that the “town hall” events aren’t scams, check all the responses Adams received from people like Ed Martin (especially love his silly attack on Jack Conway, who has nothing to do with anything they’re discussing).
CLICK TO ENLARGE
Yeah, totally non-partisan.When will they stop their ridiculous spin machine? Because as long as they keep this level of dishonesty up, the Commonwealth suffers.
Thanks to Steve Magruder for the heads-up.
40 responses so far ↓
1 E // Aug 3, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Well…now that the subject has been broached, why hasn’t there been any mention on PageOne of Jack Conway’s “unconventional” speech at Fancy Farm?
2 jake // Aug 3, 2009 at 12:47 pm
I’ve discussed it several times already – even on Saturday, on my Twitter Machine.
And there’s a story scheduled later today that addresses it.
3 E // Aug 3, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Too bad that FB page is only an image and won’t link…as there are some pretty interesting videos regarding health care and the end goal of single payer.
Please, when you do the story this afternoon, post a link to the whole “chew on my hide” speech…pleeease.
4 David Adams // Aug 3, 2009 at 1:07 pm
What am I going to find if I search Urban Dictionary for this “chew on my hide” stuff?
5 jake // Aug 3, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Apparently it’s not yet defined. Hoo boy!
6 E // Aug 3, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Apparently “chew on my hide” is a throwback to a quote of Wendell Ford fame.
With Wendell’s genuine accent and growl-like voice…it probably worked better for him than Jack.
7 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Aug 3, 2009 at 1:25 pm
With all due respect to Conressman Yarmuth, all I ask is that he be honest about his position. If he thinks we should have single-payer, then he should say so. If he says that the public option would not lead to the elimination of private insurance, he is either misinformed or lying.
As a small business owner, I paid out $63,418 in insurance premiums last year to Humana for my employees without asking them to pay a penny.
Under the House Bill, the 8% salary tax deterrent imposed on me as a business owner to reportedly keep me from dumping my employees of onto the taxpayers and the public option would be $34,850 (8% of my employees’ $435,625 annual payroll).
You do the math folks. If your private insurance costs more than 8% of your salary, you are likely going to have government insurance. If this is true, then the cost estimates are ridiculously under-estimated.
I have tried to be very respectful in my disagreements on this site and I hope this wouldn’t be considered a right-wing lie.
Please correct me if I am missing something in my CPA’s and my interpretations of the bill as it currently stands.
Maybe I am missing a some other deterrent to motivate employers from dumping their employees on the public option. As I see it, there is going to be a whole lot of lower-income wage earners pushed onto the government.
We can debate the positives and negatives of public health care, but to state that a public option isn’t going to lead to a single-payer doesn’t appear logical at this point.
8 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // Aug 3, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Mark H, I think you defeated your own point. You made the point that _some_ employers would choose to dump their employees into the public option. Some. It won’t be all, or even close to it. So how do we end up with single payer?
9 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Aug 3, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Steve,
I’m sure some will keep pay more, but come on Steve, how many employers are going to pay 45% more for private health care for their employees when they can dump their employees on the government plan?
If they wanted to promote employers keeping their current obligations, the deterrent tax would be based on a penalty per employee, not as a percentage of salary. How can I not think Congress wants to push more people onto the government rolls when they structure the deterrent in that manner that they appear to have done it.
My argument is that the deterrent is falsely based on salary instead of an individual themselves. Your health costs are not going to be proportional to your salary. Is a person who makes $36K a year going to incur health costs that are half or someone making $72K a year.
We end up with single payer because there is no way that a private insurance companies can compete with the public option if they have to underwrite premiums at 8% of their salaries.
I haven’t read the plan, so please show what other obstacle will inhibit the transfer.
10 EastkyDem // Aug 3, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Wow, so much misinformation.. they won’t get dumped into the public option.. they’ll get dumped into the insurance EXCHANGE, which includes the private option among many – Humana, wellpoint, etc…
11 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Aug 3, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Eastky Dem.
If they get dumped into the EXCHANGE, what will the government premium going to be as compared to the private insurance premiums?
If you think these companies are going to be able to openly compete with the government when it makes the rules, can print money when it wants to, and doesn’t have to make a profit, I can’t respectively agree with you. Logical market forces don’t show that to be the case.
12 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // Aug 3, 2009 at 1:58 pm
And what would be wrong with some people ending up in the public option?
I would think it would be nice for people to not have their lives and fortunes be decided by a corporate bureaucrat.
The bottom line is that we don’t have a final bill yet. Complaints over how employers will dump employees is either based on incomplete bills or right-wing misinformation. Once we have a final bill, then we can go over whose oxes are getting gored.
13 jake // Aug 3, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Then why is it private insurance companies are able to compete with Medicare?
And why is it private insurance companies often provide Medicaid benefits on the state level?
And why is it private insurance companies handle Tri-Care?
Because they’re able to compete.
14 E // Aug 3, 2009 at 2:12 pm
As the health insurance (not care) bill is still being fleshed out…no one can no for sure what the end beast will look like.
But there is a provision in the original plan where if a plan has to be altered, then the old plan is discarded and has to be replaced with a gubmint approved plan.
As I also pay my employees health insurance 100%, with each year we oft make minor adjustments in the HRA/FSA/deductible etc. .
With the bill as it exists…as soon as we need to make an adjustment or modification…we lose our existing insurance, and are forced into a gov’t approved plan.
Toss into that mix the fact that there are provisions being considered that will cap insurance premiums for private insurers in conjunction with not allowing them to deny insurance for pre-existing conditions…the insurers will have to price in increases for everyone to cover all but certain losses that will be incurred insuring already sick people.
The government is making certain that I will have to make adjustments.
As a small business we’ll have to go with what best assures our viability…I too have a feeling that that will be to dump our very nice private 100% funded plan, for the gov’t plan.
Anyone want to take bets that that gubmint plan won’t soon run deep in the red, and have to begin to raise rates? As the only game in town there will be no shopping them out either.
15 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Aug 3, 2009 at 2:15 pm
“And what would be wrong with some people ending up in the public option?”
Fair question for discussion Steve. That isn’t my issue with Yarmuth. I just wish he would be more accurate in his stance in promoting taxpayer-funded insurance over employer-funded insurance.
I am not saying that Humana and Wellpoint will cease to exist, they just won’t be able compete in the company or private-funded insurance arena, they be reduced to administering the government’s (ie taxpayers’s money).
I believe you are comparing apples and oranges. The Medicare and Medicaid programs are funded by the taxpayer, but administered by the insurance company. As such, they are bound to administer them in accordance with the government’s policies and mandates.
Maybe I need to clarify my concern Jake. It’s not the companies that won’t be able to compete, it’s their privately-funded policies that won’t be able to compete with the public one.
We can push everyone to the single-payer government-backed plan, and they can administer them all day long. In fact, you will find that most of the health care companies are backing the Obama plan.
I think most people would rather be on a company-funded private plan administered by Humana, than a Medicare or Medicaid plan administered by Humana.
16 E // Aug 3, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Back to Yarmuth…
Friend or foe…Yarmuth and the rest of congress are considering legislation that will directly affect 15% of the U S economy.
With such implications for the economy, shouldn’t Yarmuth make an effort to hear out those opposed to the plan, pleasant or not?
Or should he only plan to attend meetings where everyone thinks the plan is just ducky as is?
17 E // Aug 3, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Magruder,
[I would think it would be nice for people to not have their lives and fortunes be decided by a corporate bureaucrat.]
Life will be so much better when a government bureaucrat does the deciding instead.
Especially given that any possibility for legal recourse will likely be non-existent should an incompetent government bureaucrat F things up on the administration of your health care plan. But that’ll never happen right?
18 AB // Aug 3, 2009 at 3:23 pm
This issue lies far above Yarmuth. Our president and his crew of henchpeople attempted to bully through dramatically sweeping legislation in a ridiculous time period. A rookie Democratic congressman on the liberal side of the party has no choice but to simply salute Pelosi and vote aye, else he would find himself excommunicated and KY would get an even leaner slice of porculus. Even if he wanted to listen (and I think he does), he will vote with the lemmings regardless.
19 Bill // Aug 3, 2009 at 5:32 pm
If this health bill is so f – ing fantastic, then let Yarmuth prove it to us by being first in line to sign up for it!!!
20 jake // Aug 3, 2009 at 5:40 pm
What would that prove?
John Yarmuth, like Anne Northup and others before her – and those currently serving in Washington, D.C. – has eleventy billion dollars.
He doesn’t need health insurance.
21 Tom // Aug 3, 2009 at 5:46 pm
How dare these U. S. citizens speak their mind. Don’t they realize that we now have “hope&change” in full effect. They need to bow down to the almighty in Washington and do as they are told. Surely the American people can not take care of themselves without daily guidance for the almighty supreme leaders in D.C.
22 E // Aug 3, 2009 at 5:46 pm
That’s an interesting perspective…
So, under the mandatory enrollment tenet of the proposed legislation…do the people who have eleventy billion dollars have to enroll?
There is a proposal in DC that would require that all legislators that vote for the health insurance (not health care) plan, enroll in the plan. HR615
23 jake // Aug 3, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Are you purposefully missing the point?
It won’t matter if they have to enroll. They’ve got more money than Jeebus and can afford anything that comes their way.
But if you were honest, you’d address the fact that a public option wouldn’t require people to enroll and you’d also be able to discern that higher-priced, premium plans would be available.
Thanks for the spin.
FEAR FEAR FEAR! Evil socialist medicine.
24 Michelle // Aug 3, 2009 at 6:00 pm
The public option would eventually price out the private fine you can’t make people be customers of the private and if you don’t make money you won’t survive. So, then we will have single payer and the kicker comes then; the government does have the power to make you their customer once it is single payer they will tax what ever they need to pay for the watered down, mess they will serve up.
Yarmuth and any one willing to vote for this should attend any and all meeting and defend the bill if there is one and take it if people don’t like it. If they are shouting maybe it is because they aren’t being heard.
25 jake // Aug 3, 2009 at 6:05 pm
NEW RULE:
Must be able to make sense before commenting.
26 3CardNana // Aug 3, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Be kind Jake, I think that was Michelle’s first paragraph
27 Sirico // Aug 3, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Looks like the new rule killed the naysayers aurguments!
28 jake // Aug 3, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Hey, I’m not trying to kill anybody’s argument. Just need to be able to understand what they’re saying before anyone is able to respond.
29 Conservative // Aug 3, 2009 at 9:29 pm
I wonder if Chandler will be holding any town meetings during the August recess. I’m sure he’ll get an earful if he does. Between cap-and-tax and socialized medicine, he’s due a good dressing-down from his constituents.
30 Bruce Maples // Aug 3, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Punctuation is your friend.
31 jake // Aug 3, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Ben Chandler runs from liberals. What makes you think he can handle people who actually disagree with him?
32 AB // Aug 3, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Hey Conservative, AMEN! If you go, ask Ben if his Blue Dog is still barking. Sic ‘em, woof!
33 Sirico // Aug 3, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Blue Dog Democrat= Corporate Democrat= A flunky for the Health-Care Industry
Jake, I was just kidding…lol!
34 Steve Magruder (I, not D or R) // Aug 4, 2009 at 11:36 am
Food for thought: What’s so great with the private option?
35 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Aug 4, 2009 at 12:55 pm
“Even if you’re accepted, your carrier reserves the right to cancel your policy retroactively if it finds that you left even a tiny condition from years back off your application.”
Let’s talk about pre-existing conditions. If we were to mandate that all insurers would have to cover pre-ex, why would anyone pay for insurance until they get sick? The health care companies have embraced eliminating pre-ex as long as everyone is mandated to have coverage and thus spread the risk. The Obama administration has backed away from the necessary requirement because it didn’t poll well.
Otherwise you have a 50 year old smoker who has never paid a penny in premium for decades who finds himself with a persistent cough. He then applies for insurance and finds out he has lung cancer. Is that fair Steve or more importantly, sustainable from a cost standpoint?
Are there bad examples of insurance coverage, certainly, but the vast majority of claims that are denied due to the applicant lying to get cheaper rates or not disclosing known issues for the same reason. The heavy drinker who suspects he has liver issues, the 4mo pregnant wife who reportedly had no idea she was pregnant, or the person who is 3 inches shorter and 50 lbs heavier than their application stated.
Why should health insurance any different from other insurance. If you obtained car insurance and told the underwriter that your 2006 Honda was actually a 1998 Honda, you would expect the carrier to pay.
Steve, I think you will find that if you get away from the spin, the health care companies are not funding huge campaigns as alleged by the proponents. I don’t see or hear the adds on TV and radio funded by the insurance companies.
Why can’t we implement many of the cost saving ideas suggested without the public option and see what happens? We could cut billions in cost by eliminating state-specific mandates and variations in laws alone.
Why not allow personal deductions and create the pools and the EXCHANGE without the public option, and see what happens before committing to an absolutely huge financial commitment first?
36 Louisville Flyer // Aug 7, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Mark H is making FAR & AWAY the most coherent arguments in this thread. Nicely done Mark!! Interesting that the left-wing idealogues are not coming up with counter-arguments.
Everyone should be more rational about this and actually listen to the real arguments, and make an informed decision. To see the demonization of people who oppose Obama and dems on this is just sickening. Why are passionate voters that show up to town-halls to voice their opinions considered “thugs” and “organized mobs”?? Organizing is a right in this country (for now), regardless of what Obama would prefer.
37 jake // Aug 7, 2009 at 1:01 pm
For full disclosure: Louisville Flyer is a Humana employee.
38 Taylor // Aug 7, 2009 at 1:19 pm
“Why are passionate voters that show up to town-halls to voice their opinions considered “thugs” and “organized mobs”??
Because having the GOP and health care lobby pay off staffers and their family and friends to shout down anyone who disagrees with them without any respect for meaningful debate is exactly that.
“Organizing is a right in this country (for now), regardless of what Obama would prefer.”
Which one of these people are you?
39 RexKing // Aug 7, 2009 at 11:57 pm
As a senior, in very good health, I am concerned as to they quality of care and degree of care I will receive. Yes, all congressmen and federal employees, and admininstration should be the first to give up their plans and be the first ones here. Let them be first. A single payer plan run by the federal gov’t. will put the health care industry out of business, or at least make buying that coverage too expensive for all but the very well off financially. Lets not kid ourselves, if we add 30 or 40 or 50 million the the plan, where are the doctors and other health care people coming from? That means some rationing of care, no doubt about it. I really don’t want some federal sob telling me how to live my last days……yes, we need to do something for the needy and uninsured, but this plan is not the answer, conceived in haste and shoved down our throats.
40 Terri // Aug 8, 2009 at 12:42 pm
So Rex, did you actually write that or just cut-n-paste from Free Republic or something?
Not a zero-sum game, folks. “I’m fine with 30-40-50 million people in this country doing without the most basic of preventive health services and paying double for it in the ‘free market’ because I don’t want to have to have hospice care someday and Hussein Osama…” Ugh…
Leave a Comment