The Truth That Tells a Lie
When Obama speaks about health care, he omits crucial details.
By Alex Castellanos
Let’s agree that the U.S. House of Representatives is not the place to use the word “lie” to demean your political opponents. Joe Wilson’s outburst was shameful and uncivil. Just when you think no one could drag political discourse down any lower than it is, along comes Congressman Wilson to shout an insult at our president. The Democratic majority has censured him for that breach.
Should they now censure President Obama for his more composed delivery of the same term?
A few moments before Congressman Wilson lost his cool, President Obama said, “Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.”
Whether the president’s charge is true is a separate but important issue we will take up in a moment. First is the issue of fairness. Is it inappropriate for all of our political leaders to call members of the opposing party liars on the floor of the House of Representatives? Or is there a separate standard for President Obama and the members of his party? Joe Wilson’s remark was unplanned. Our president came to Congress pleading for bipartisanship but intending to demean his opponents with the same expression. What standard are we to observe?
Those who would exempt the president from civility tell us his situation is different. It is a fact, they say, that the words “death panel” do not appear in any proposed health-care legislation. They say that it is in fact the president’s opponents who have lied. But have they?
Fact and truth are not the same thing.
On this we can agree: Whoever pays the bills in a health-care system makes the decisions. Whoever controls the money has the power to decide what care seniors and others will get. At times this can be a power of life and death. Under the president’s plan, the government’s control of health-care money, its power to pay or not pay health-care bills, would grow. Add it up: The president has rightly noted that half of health-care costs are incurred by seniors near the ends of their lives. The president has also been clear that he intends for the government to reduce health-care costs. Should seniors not conclude that two and two are four, especially when Democrats have blocked legislation that would prohibit government rationing?
This president believes in government. He would put the cost-saving mechanisms for health care in Washington. He asks politicians, government boards, bureaucrats, and commissions to employ rules, regulations, and mandates to reduce health-care costs. Health-care reform, like most other Obama initiatives, is government-centered and top-down. In other nations where government similarly controls the money and has the power to decide what health care it will and will not pay for, bureaucracies have made decisions that would not be tolerated here. In Britain a few years ago, patients were denied Relenza, flu shots that cost about $40, because the government claimed it had insufficient evidence that the expensive inoculation was effective. Hundreds died. We do not know how many lives might have been saved by a flu shot that is judged to be 70 percent effective. When morgues overflowed, the National Health Service had to rent refrigerated trucks to haul the bodies away.
As President Obama said in his speech, the fact is that “nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.” But the truth is that millions will lose their coverage when they are dumped into a government-run health-care plan. The fact is that the president has pledged his plan won’t add to the deficit. But the truth is that Americans will have to pay the near-trillion-dollar cost with higher taxes or reductions in their current care. The fact is that the words “death panel” do not appear in legislation. The truth is that government rationing of health care for seniors will have similar consequences.
Pablo Picasso once said, “Art is the lie that tells the truth.” Today, a master of the political arts has turned Picasso on his head. In this debate we have seen that “politics is the fact that tells a lie.” And the biggest lie being told in Washington is charismatic and composed. It is pretending that government rationing of health care at the end of life would not have a deadly effect.
When Obama speaks about health care, he omits crucial details.
By Alex Castellanos
Let’s agree that the U.S. House of Representatives is not the place to use the word “lie” to demean your political opponents. Joe Wilson’s outburst was shameful and uncivil. Just when you think no one could drag political discourse down any lower than it is, along comes Congressman Wilson to shout an insult at our president. The Democratic majority has censured him for that breach.
Should they now censure President Obama for his more composed delivery of the same term?
A few moments before Congressman Wilson lost his cool, President Obama said, “Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.”
Whether the president’s charge is true is a separate but important issue we will take up in a moment. First is the issue of fairness. Is it inappropriate for all of our political leaders to call members of the opposing party liars on the floor of the House of Representatives? Or is there a separate standard for President Obama and the members of his party? Joe Wilson’s remark was unplanned. Our president came to Congress pleading for bipartisanship but intending to demean his opponents with the same expression. What standard are we to observe?
Those who would exempt the president from civility tell us his situation is different. It is a fact, they say, that the words “death panel” do not appear in any proposed health-care legislation. They say that it is in fact the president’s opponents who have lied. But have they?
Fact and truth are not the same thing.
On this we can agree: Whoever pays the bills in a health-care system makes the decisions. Whoever controls the money has the power to decide what care seniors and others will get. At times this can be a power of life and death. Under the president’s plan, the government’s control of health-care money, its power to pay or not pay health-care bills, would grow. Add it up: The president has rightly noted that half of health-care costs are incurred by seniors near the ends of their lives. The president has also been clear that he intends for the government to reduce health-care costs. Should seniors not conclude that two and two are four, especially when Democrats have blocked legislation that would prohibit government rationing?
This president believes in government. He would put the cost-saving mechanisms for health care in Washington. He asks politicians, government boards, bureaucrats, and commissions to employ rules, regulations, and mandates to reduce health-care costs. Health-care reform, like most other Obama initiatives, is government-centered and top-down. In other nations where government similarly controls the money and has the power to decide what health care it will and will not pay for, bureaucracies have made decisions that would not be tolerated here. In Britain a few years ago, patients were denied Relenza, flu shots that cost about $40, because the government claimed it had insufficient evidence that the expensive inoculation was effective. Hundreds died. We do not know how many lives might have been saved by a flu shot that is judged to be 70 percent effective. When morgues overflowed, the National Health Service had to rent refrigerated trucks to haul the bodies away.
As President Obama said in his speech, the fact is that “nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.” But the truth is that millions will lose their coverage when they are dumped into a government-run health-care plan. The fact is that the president has pledged his plan won’t add to the deficit. But the truth is that Americans will have to pay the near-trillion-dollar cost with higher taxes or reductions in their current care. The fact is that the words “death panel” do not appear in legislation. The truth is that government rationing of health care for seniors will have similar consequences.
Pablo Picasso once said, “Art is the lie that tells the truth.” Today, a master of the political arts has turned Picasso on his head. In this debate we have seen that “politics is the fact that tells a lie.” And the biggest lie being told in Washington is charismatic and composed. It is pretending that government rationing of health care at the end of life would not have a deadly effect.
