Health Care: President Obama, Liar

Yes, President Obama and the Democrats are lying about a number of things about their proposed health care "overhaul"--including lies about the nature of the opposition. However, this entry is about one very bovious lie. It is a repeat of a previous entry in this blog, because Obama has repreated the LIE.


You may not have noticed the Yahoo Welcome screen yesterday featured an article from the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (always use complete, official name in first reference). The headline asserted taht "President Obama Says Health Care Overhaul Necessary to Recovery". The rist paragraph of the despicable AP story suggested that Obama had said that health care overhaul was necessary to "prosperity". That is not quite the same thing, but both assertions (health care "overhaul" being necessary to either "recovery" OR "prosperity") are LIES. By the way the despicable AP, in that same desicable first paragraph, which failed to point out that htis was an OLD asstertion of Obama's (see this blog's entry of a month or so ago) , tried to boster Obama by suggesting thaat Obama was gaining credibility because of the "better than expected" job news on Friday. More about that later. Back to Obama's LIE.


"If Congress passes a health care 'overhaul' giving the Federal Government control over the health care system in this country, which is true of ANY 'overhaul' the Democrats are now proposing, any 'recovery' of our economy--any 'propserity'--will be made impossible." Now that is MY assertion. Is that assertiona a lie? Nope. Not possible. The most you can say is that it is a statement of opinion, and that you think it is wrong. By "overhaoul" of our health care system, Obama and the Democrats clearly mean that the Federal Government will have a substantial role in the system--even as they rty to deceive about how extensive they would like that role to ultimately be. That will mean the government is asserting a role in health care it has not previously asserted, or tried. Why else would it be a big deal? The Democrats HAVE to be proposing a much more substantial Federal role in helath care, or they are LYING about how important it is to get this done NOW. Okay, they are lying about that anyway, but you get the point. Since we have never TRIED this kind of substantial government role in helath care/health insurance before, I can' possibly LIE about it, can I? It is a matter of opinion, because it has not yet been TRIED.


How can I say that Obama's statement is a lie? Is it not also a matter of opinion? Nope. Not so. Remember, the proposed role of the Federal Government in this proposed Democratic health care "overhaul" is NEW. It has never been done before. For Obama's statement to not be a lie, we would have to have NEVER had "prosperity" before, and NEVER had a "recovery" before. That is objectively NOT TRUE. Now I realize that Obama likes to pretend that we, in fact, have NEVER had "prosperrity"--just as we have never had many other things--before Obama decided to bring them to us. By objective standards, however, this is still NOT TRUE.


In other words, id we not have a "recovery" from the Bush 41 recession in Bill Clinton's Presidency? Of course we did. Did we have "prosperity"? Yep, we did. So how can it not be a LIE for Obama to say that "prosperity" and "recovery" RQUIRE an helath care "overhaul"? That can't possibly be true. But ti CAN be true, as I assert, that we can DESTROY our economy by the Federal Government ADD cost to the system, and ADD to the already out of control deficit. Yes, those things are matter of opinion, but there is substantial basis for the opininon. For example, the Congressional Budget Office has said thatt he Democratic bill will ADD to health care costs in this country. But it is NOT a "matter of opinion" when Obama says that we can't have "prosperity" without a health care "overhaul", when we HAVE had prosperity (many times) without a health care "overhaul". The clear risk to recovery is to try a speculative, and costly, "overhaul" of our health care system when we have never tried it before--doing so, moreover, in the midst of a sev ere recession (if Obama gets his way).


The RISKY ting to do is to try a MASSIVE "overhaul" of our health care system. The SAFE thing to do, because we KNOW that our economy can (will?) recover without such an "overhaul", is to do NOTHING until we have recovered. Nope. Thre is NO evidence that "health care" is worse now than it was in the Clinton years (or Reagan years or Bush years). Nor is there any evicence that health care is somehow responsible for this recession (the ONLY way it could prevent a recovery from this recession). This recession came aobut because of the HOUSING crisis, and because of a CREDIT CRUCH related to that (and our unreasonable PNIC). Now our PANIC government overreaction might stop a recovery, but it is IMPOSSIBLE for "health care" to stop a recovery (when it had no role in the recession, and is causing no EXTRA burden on the economy now, other than the fact that people who are out of work are having trouble affording health care (a consequence of the recession, and NOT a "cause" of either the recession or a failure to recover).


Okay, it might be asserted. It obviously is a LIE for Obama to say that we cannot have "prosperity", or a "recovery", without health care "overhaul", when we have had those things before without any health care "overhaul". But was that really "prosperity", without people having full access to health care, and will it really be a full "recovery" if many people are left behind without health care coverage?


Now we are getting somewhere. That is "1984", Orwellian double speak, although it may well be exactly what Obama is really saying. If you DEFINE "prosperity" as EVERYONE having health insurance, then everyone having health insurance is "necessary" for "prosperity". That is because you have REDEFINED your terms from their ordinary meaning, and argued in a CIRCLE (logical fallacy of "begging the question"). If you DEFINE lthat there can't be a "real" "recovery" without a "approved" health insurance for EVERYONE, then--BY DEFINITION--that is so.


So what. Let me definie words any way I want, and I can assert things just as astounding as those asserted by Obama. You can either admit that Obama is lying by asserting something that is completely disproved from actual experience, or you can admit that Obama is lying--in the "1984" way--by REDEFINING words to mean what he wants them to mean (rather than what they have always meant). Actually, Obama is lying in BOTH ways, AND engaging in cricular, fallacious reasoning. The guy has real talent--as both a comic genius and "1984" syle propagandist (which requires a total self0confidence that you can MAKE people believe the outrageous things you are salying instead of what they KNOW to be true).


Let us go to the mainstream media, including the truly despicable AP, and LAST SUMMER. Remember when the economy GREW in two consecutive quarters, and I think JOBS GREW, as well? What was the media response? You remember. It was that the economy was DEAD IN THE WATER, and not creating enough jobs to grow the econmy. Yes, I the economy would collapse in the Paulson-Bernanke PANIC of October, as the economy may collapse again becaue of the MASSIVE growth on a central planning Federal Government, but last slummer the economy merely seemed STAGNANT. For the mainstream media, that was BAD "new".


Segue to that last jobs report of Friday. Jobs were actually LOST (247,000). Contrary to the AP, that was NOT substantially "betyter than expected". It was AS EXPECTED. Economists had expected a number about like that. Any "better than expected" number was within the STATISTICAL NOISE of these numbers--no reason to believe that the "difference" from the "consensus" prediction had any significance at all. As this blog has told you, the economy is BUMPING ALONG THE BOTTOM--not getting substantially worse, but not improving. If Bush had gotten these kind of numbers last summer, the media would have cried that they were TERRIBLE. In fact, the media said that even when the Bush numbers showed GROWTH (really, of coure, showing basically a flat, not improving economy which is basically what these latest job numbers showed).


What about the unemployment rate? The mainstream media essentially declared an END to the recession because that rate "improve" .1. That was essentailly a LIE by the mainstream media. .1% is NOT an "improvement". It is well within EXPECTED statistical ERROR. In fact, the unemployment rate is notoriously unreliable month to month (as, for that matter, is the jobs number, ash shown by the fact that such number INCREASE A LOT IN JUNE). The unemployment rate did NOT "improve". It could merely be said to have stayed the same. Yes, that was "better than expected", but has to be confirmed by future numbers (as is true of the alleged "improvement" in the jobs lost number). These numbers are ADJUSTED, including with seasonal adjustments. Those adjustments are notoriously unreliable if unusual things are going on in the economy (such as the government pumping in money, helping buy cars, etc.). Last summer, the first "stimulus" helped DISTORT the numbers, and the mainstream media said so. Why not report these numbers the same way now? You know the answer to that!!!


These (mainstream media) are the worst HYPOCRITES to ever walk the Earth on two legs, and the most dishonest. They are interested in agenda, and not "news".


Yep. I COULD do it better. But, again, it is not the "job" of this blog to rewrite AP stories in a neutral way. My job is to point out how DESPICABLE these people are. "Neutral" "journalism" is probably dead. That means everyone has to understand the bias, and read between the lines. However, you can count on this blog for HONESTY. I said last summer that the numbers did not show that we were in a recession, but that it made no difference whether we were in a "recession" or not. The conomy was FLAT. I am telling you now that these new numbers are showing an "improving" economy ONLY in the sense that it is not continuing to get SUBSTANTIALLY worse, but that we are still just bumping along the bottom. My OPINION is that we have made a full recovery impossible with too much government, and will make it even more impossible if we actually "overhaul" health care--especailly at this time. As was shown last summer, you can BUY apparently "improving" economic numbers IN THE SHORT RUN. They may well then be wore, IN THE LONG RUN.


These monthly numbers mean little, other than we are no longer n free fall (for now). Yes, the Stupidest People on Earth (Wall Streeet) continue to exist in their own computer gaiming universe, where the "ufndamentals" of the economy don't even matter. Thus, you can have high OIL PRICES predicting inflation (BAD for the economy and interest rates) at the same time the stock market is saying that the economy is just as good as about the AVERAGE to the entire Bush years (FALSE). These (Wall Street and financial markets) are truly stupid people.


None of these last few paragraphs have much to do witht he objective LIES of Obama. They do, however, indicate why Obama expects to get away with the incredible, objectively false things he says. He expects the mainstream media to back him up, as the AP (and Yahoo) did this time), and he expects people to continue to pay attention to the mainstream media. After all, they DID help elect Obama, didn't they? I believe (opinion again, and I hope it is not wishful thinking) that the day of the mainstream media and Obama is about over (for now anyway). The only question, and it is an important one, is how much DAMAGE the Democrats can do before they are brought down to earth. Passin health care "overhaul" would be a major item of damage.