As has been widely reported and expected, ABC’s “Prescription for America” turned out to be another one-sided ‘debate’ from the establishment media. Normally in a debate there are at least two opposing sides. However, everyone in the show from the ‘moderator’ to the network’s medical editor were on the same side.
Furthermore, ABC’s pre-screened audience was picked because they already believed that health care needed to be changed, and undoubtedly that meant supporting some kind of nationalized system (Obamacare). At the very beginning of the show, ‘moderator’ Charles Gibson asked the audience the question: “How many of you agree with the president that we need to change our health care system?” Unsurprisingly, they all raised their hands.
A couple of the questions were challenging for Obama, but since no opposing views were allowed, the president was able to just give standard talking point answers, which never really addressed the questions. Many of Obama’s responses were also contradictory, where on the one hand he doesn’t want bureaucrats making end of life decisions, but on the other hand they are already being made, but these are personal decisions to be made by families and their doctors, but if the data shows that it won’t help, then…..etc, etc. No clear answer.
Obama likes to repeat the extremely misleading notion that Americans won’t be required to change their insurance plans. For all but the wealthiest people, this won’t be true. Most people will not be able to afford a tax increase to pay for other people’s government health plans while at the same time maintaining their own private coverage. They will simply be forced into the government-run system whether they like it or not. Many companies will likewise opt for the public plan, thus forcing all their employees to lose their current private insurance.
This staged infomercial, while called a “serious conversation,” is a disgrace and a disservice to the American people who were denied an honest debate. Most people who watched the special will come away believing in the president’s proposals, which was the whole point from the beginning, not a fair and balanced presentation.
Powered by FireStats
Your observation are skewed to one side. To say that Americans will be required to change their insurance plan is totally wrong. In fact, a continuation of cost increases will make any form of employer paid insurance unaffordable to both employer and employee. This is the classic “straw dog argument” tactic that anyone with a brain can see through immediately. If the facts were on your side, you would argue them fairly. They are not.
“Your observation are skewed to one side.”
As skewed as the ABC infomercial? There is nothing skewed about it, and it is not a “straw dog argument” unlike the fallacy you propose. As though the only option to combat “a continuation of cost increases” is government-run medicine. Government health programs are not doing better where costs are concerned. According to recent CMS Actuary calculations, Medicare and Medicaid spent $818 billion in 2008 and are projected to reach $1.7 trillion by 2018. Assuming Medicare does not go broke by 2018. The administrative costs for Medicare are also higher, not lower, than private insurance.
If the facts were on your side, ABC would have been open to opposing views and advertisements. They did not, which speaks volumes of the “facts” your side presents. You talk about arguing “fairly” – that’s a laugh, considering how one-sided the media has been.
No matter how much you try to promote single-payer or socialized medicine, the fact remains that America still has the best medical care compared to any other nation by any meaningful measure. Government-run medicine will be a huge step backwards. And even 70 percent of the estimated 35 million Americans who don’t have insurance say they do, in fact, receive medical care, and that a vast majority of them are satisfied with it. “… 45 percent of uninsured are uninsured for less than four months; only 16 percent are uninsured for more than 18 months.[7]”
A centralized system of government health care would:
· Diminish individuals’ control over their personal health care decisions;
· Directly undermine state autonomy and authority in health policy, undercutting both innovation and experimentation to expand coverage and deliver quality care, especially for the poorest and most vulnerable of our citizens;
· Generate and perpetuate unsustainable federal spending; and
· Ultimately, in the face of serious budget crises, lead to government rationing of care and services.
[...] pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn’t seek such extraordinary help for ABC Health Care Special: Misleading Responses From Obama - thenationalscene.com 06/25/2009 As has been widely reported and expected, ABC’s “Prescription [...]