A guide to political language in the ObamaCare debate

In our age there is no such thing as “keeping out of politics.” All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. — George Orwell

The political dictionary turns words and thoughts on their heads. Coercion is virtuous. Ending extortion is thievery.

This week the Senate voted 48-51 against the so-called “skinny” ObamaCare repeal. The bill would have ended the mandate that everyone must purchase health care insurance or pay a stiff penalty. The “skinny” bill lowered the penalty to $0. It also ended the requirement that employers with 50 or more employees provide a specific amount of health insurance or pay a penalty.

Nevada Republican Sen. Dean Heller voted for taking the gun away from the heads of Americans and let them decide for themselves whether to purchase health insurance.

Nevada Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto voted against the repeal and is quoted in the morning paper as saying:

“In the dead of night, Senate Republicans tried and failed to rip away the health care of hundreds of thousands of Nevadans and millions of Americans. Their failed attempt is the result of overwhelming public opposition – your calls, letters, protests and tweets put Republicans on notice.

“The Affordable Care Act has provided lifesaving, affordable health care coverage to millions. …”

Las Vegas Democratic Rep. Jacky Rosen, who has said she will seek to unseat Heller, was quoted as saying that Heller had promised he wouldn’t vote for a bill that takes health care from hundreds of thousands of Nevadans, but, “Last night he voted to do just that.” (The quote is in the print edition, but not the online version.)

See. Ending extortion is theft.

But this is nothing new when it comes to discussing ObamaCare. Antonin Scalia’s dissent in the Supreme Court decision upholding ObamaCare points out the newspeak and doublethink required:

The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.

 

Catherine Cortez Masto at UMC. (KSNV pix)

 

 

Advertisements

34 comments on “A guide to political language in the ObamaCare debate

  1. deleted says:

    Orwell might be equally aghast at you a Thomas “summing up” Sen. Masto simply pointing out that a Heller lied when he said that he wouldn’t vote the way he ultimately voted and she never said anything about theft.

    Some Americans do have healthcare by virtue of the passage of the ACA, who never did before, and republicans, including Heller, did vote to take it away from them, which was what Sen. Masto said.

  2. The skinny bill did not cut Medicaid, which is what Heller talked about earlier.

  3. deleted says:

    ““I’m telling you right now, I cannot support a piece of legislation that takes insurance away from tens of millions of Americans, and hundreds of thousands of Nevadans,” Heller said on Friday during a press conference.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/gop-senator-dean-heller-wont-support-senate-healthcare-bill/531483/

    “The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that 16 million Americans could lose their health insurance by 2026 under Senate Republicans’ Health Care Freedom Act, “the skinny Bill”, a bill that would repeal only some elements of Obamacare.

    The legislation would also result in premiums that are roughly 20% higher than they are under the current law each year between 2018 and 2026.”

    http://www.businessinsider.com/obamacare-skinny-repeal-cbo-score-2017-7

    So, even though Sen. Masto said nothing about theft, what she said was accurate.

  4. Not forcing someone to buy something is not taking it away.

  5. deleted says:

    Come on Thomas.

    Heller lied. For whatever reasons he had; pressure, money, love, whatever it was he said he would sign the Bill that meant hundreds of thousands of Nevada’s would lose the insurance coverage they had, and he did.

  6. Steve says:

    Heller doing whatever he see’s necessary to try and hold on to that Senate seat is what he did and continues to do. Pence and McConnell got to him somehow just like Reid got to Nelson back in 2010.
    Why is it, when Democrats like Reid lie, you liberals all claim they “evolved” but when Conservatives change their minds in much the same manner, they lie?

  7. Vernon Clayson says:

    Our senators were just wafflers, nothing compared to the bizarre act of the so-called maverick, McCain, he might as well put his middle finger up as his thumb down, he didn’t care about the bill, he was sending a message to the President. He reminded me of geriatric klansman Robert Byrd being wheeled in on a gurney to vote for Obamacare, he also looked foolish.

  8. Steve says:

    When you have nothing, anymore, to lose. You can say whatever you really feel.
    I appreciate what McCain said and did.

    It’s long past time the people in DC stop thinking they can run roughshod over everyone who doesn’t agree, lock stock and barrel, with their dogma.

  9. Athos says:

    How do you deal with a Republican party that has run every election cycle since ’09 on repealing PinocchioCare? (Remember that glorious day when Scotty Brown won Ted Kennedy’s seat?!?)

    Didn’t they pass a repeal bill in 2015 (both houses) and send the bill to Pinocchio to die?

    And didn’t they tell their faithful that all they need is the Presidency and this would be done?

    So tell me, what am I missing here?

    Congress-Republican check

    Senate-Republican check

    President-Republican check

    So where’s the repeal??

  10. Just wondering…where’s McCains alternative bill? Oh that’s right…he doesn’t have one, he’s just another pontificator blowing smoke & hot air (after kicking his fellow Republicans in the shins).

    http://www.michaelpramirez.com/baby-charlie.html

  11. Barbara says:

    The ACA was not repealed because we have too many Senators, Congressman, and a President who love their power, fame, money, etc., more than they love their country. This issue cuts across party lines and to pretend otherwise is foolish.

    Dean Heller voted against repealing the act Thomas and you should be calling him out for breaking his promise.

    Centralized government health care is not compatible with our founding principles of individual liberty and natural law. Those who support it cannot also support what America has stood for since its founding.

    Government control of health care means you must give up your right to control your life. You cede this right to bureaucrats who will decide who is treated, when, and how. This is not compatible with the God given right to life Americans have always recognized. Baby Charlie Gard and his parents found out too late what evil centralized government control is really all about. Do not be so naive to think this is not the future of America.

  12. Rincon says:

    In “socialized medicine” Australia, the well to do buy supplemental insurance. Those who purchase it are allowed whatever level of care they pay for. Why do you think it couldn’t happen here? Seems to work reasonable well. After all they live longer than we do and so do their babies.

  13. Steve says:

    Australia’s so called supplemental insurance is Cadillac coverage here, Rincon.

  14. deleted says:

    The founding fathers, specifically a Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Alexander Hamilton were true believers that businesses were mostly theft (Franklin) that every piece of undeveloped land belonged to every American equally (Franklin again) that the government was obligated to pay to every man woman and child a certain amount of money each and every year (Paine) and that the best government was a large central government (Hamilton)

    These founding father would have undoubtedly believed that a nation who provided for the very life of their citizenry, were doing just what they had intended.

  15. Steve says:

    citation….lacking

  16. deleted says:

    Stood for since it’s founding? Apparently, what this country has stood for since it’s founding, has been lost to time. Leastways as some people would like to remember it.

    “All Property, indeed, except the Savage’s temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.”

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s12.html

    I say, let them go live among the savages. Like this founder said.

  17. deleted says:

    Yes the ideas of those proclaiming so loudly and proudly their knowledge of how far we’ve travelled since this country was founded, wish to “disappear” entirely the very words of the men who actually did the founding don’t they? Leastways the ones whose ideas differ with their own about “what this country was founded on”

    “Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case, I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,

    To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:

    And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age.

    MEANS BY WHICH THE FUND IS TO BE CREATED

    I have already established the principle, namely, that the earth, in its natural uncultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the human race; that in that state, every person would have been born to property; and that the system of landed property, by its inseparable connection with cultivation, and with what is called civilized life, has absorbed the property of all those whom it dispossessed, without providing, as ought to have been done, an indemnification for that loss.”

    Thomas Paine

    http://www.constitution.org/tp/agjustice.htm

  18. deleted says:

    Finally, Ben wasn’t quite the supporter of “free enterprise” that some would have people believe was inherent in our “beloved founders” otherwise why would he have said that business is mostly theft?

    ““There seem to be but three ways for a nation to acquire wealth. The first is by war…This is robbery. The second by commerce, which is generally cheating. The third by agriculture, the only honest way, wherein man receives a real increase of the seed thrown into the ground, in a kind of continual miracle, wrought by the hand of God in his favor, as a reward for his innocent life and his virtuous industry.”

    Sounds like something Marx would have said right?

    http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_world_agriculture.html

  19. Athos says:

    Oh my, how little p of you! To cite previously never heard of quotes from our founding fathers to justify Marxism( actually telling us that was overkill little p)
    Your contempt for us conservative constitutionalist is laughable. But then again you really feel we’re that gullible, don’t you?
    You may consider that could be one of the reasons your candidate Hillary lost.
    But thanks for the laugh, it was funny!

  20. deleted says:

    Athos I’m happy to have educated you. I wonder though whether you’d put these founding fathers, with their clearly “Marxist” ideas (even though they all pre-date Marx) into that category?

    I don’t know though, how quoting these founding fathers shows contempt for anything, and I wonder why you’d have contempt for the truth? Is that what a “conservative Constitutionalist” is?

  21. Athos says:

    Your contempt for individual liberty is blatantly obvious. How could we possibly have a discussion when your side doesn’t want to discuss, your side only wants to rule?

  22. deleted says:

    So you say.

    But the question I have for you is:

    Which part of what the above founders wrote is consistent with individual liberty and, if it’s not, then what does that tell you about the basis for the foundation of the country?

  23. Athos says:

    But you never answered my question as to why you wish the destruction of western civilization.
    First things first little p!

  24. deleted says:

    Well, since my question came first, maybe you answer that question then we can get to yours.

  25. Athos says:

    well since you’re the one that just wanted to have a conversation, I believe my point is more relevant. therefore we need to start with why you wish the destruction of western civilization?
    that’s not too tough for you to answer is it?

  26. Rincon says:

    When Conservatives start talking in vague generalities and begin hurling insults, you know they’ve been licked. Congratulations, deleted.

  27. Steve says:

    When Liberals start talking in vague generalities and begin hurling insults, you know they’ve been licked. Congratulations, Athos.

    since, they both got vague….but really, neither started hurling insults.

    And Patrick (AKA deleted) invented quotes never made by the founders.

  28. deleted says:

    Rincon:

    Thanks I was looking for a reasonable discussion though. It’s like people don’t want that anymore.

    I don’t get it.

  29. Athos says:

    It’s hard to have a rational discussion with people that want to destroy western civilization and bring us into a global world order.
    It’s equally hard to discuss socialize medicine a.k.a. single payer and ignore what happened to Charlie Gard in England (or our CURRENT VA healthcare!)
    And make no mistake, anyone that wants the government in charge of their healthcare is a full-blown advocate for tyrannical rule by government elites.

    What reasonable discussion could you possibly want to have, rinny?

  30. Rincon says:

    I suppose we could start by asking and answering why U.S. citizens die sooner than those of the vast majority of other advanced nations. The “tyrannical rule by government elites” seems to provide better results that our tyrannical rule by the health care cartel. I have to be more impressed by results than by theoretical assertions.

    So let’s sum it up: Their tyrannical governmental health care results in a longer life span as well as better infant survivability, while our apparently nontyrannical government, at the behest of Conservatives, incarcerates more people than all but a few nations while preserving much higher crime rates. Your definition of tyranny differs greatly from mine.

  31. Steve says:

    Athos, Rincon has no interest in discussion.
    Only interest in debunction and denial.

  32. Athos says:

    Yeah, you would think with our lower life expectancy and infant mortality rate nobody would want to come here to live, wouldn’t you?
    And yet how’s our legal and illegal immigration policy going again? It’s a real bummer when real life doesn’t match up to your made-up statistics. Kind of like an Al Gore thing!
    I’ve noticed there’s no discussion about Charlie Gard or the VA.
    Hmmmmmmmm. Curious, no?

  33. Rincon says:

    Denying reality is no argument.

  34. Steve says:

    Reality disturbs the liberal process, it’s why liberals so dislike conservatives. Conservatives are realists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s