The BIG LIE in Politics, From The Democratic Side [125]

I THOUGHT IT ABOUT time to bring the other side, the Democrats into the hot seat now that I have taken a few potshots at the Conservatives. Most of the examples will be coming from President Obama, but, I will present other Democrats as I find them.

PRESIDENT OBAMA

Source

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

President Obama has now had almost five years to accumulate misstatements, deceptions, and outright lies. Politifact, of course, has been keeping track and publishing what they find, which, in turn, gives me plenty of fodder to write hubs about.

1. On Friday, February 10th, 2012, in a briefing at the White House, President Obama repeated a familiar theme ... "Preventive care … saves money, for families, for businesses, for government, for everybody." This is something I absolutely believed to be true ... until a couple of days ago when I read Politifacts analysis. It turns out this claim is a LIE.

What is true is that Preventive Care does save Lives, but not necessarily money; in fact, it may cost more money in the long run. The question, of course, revolves around whether ObamaCare should insure that preventative care be part of the required health care offered with no co-pay; the theory being that preventative care would save money. Unfortunately, all it does is save lives and therefore becomes a debating point. If it actually saved money, there would be no debate at all.

2. On the Re-elect Obama-Biden website, the following was reported: "Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich all say they would cut foreign aid to Israel — and every other country — to zero." This is a LIE.

While all three candidates did mention "zeroing out" foreign aid to all countries, the Obama campaign took it way out of context. What they really said, in a debate on foreign policy, was that they would assess foreign aid needs by first zeroing out each country's foreign aid budgets and rebuilding it from the ground up; that is a far cry from what is implied by the words "... cut foreign aid to Israel — and every other country — to zero."

3. I have heard President Obama say something like the following many times, during his speeches, "What I have done -- and this is unprecedented ... is I've said to each agency ... 'look at regulations that are already on the books and if they don't make sense, let's get rid of them.'" It isn't the part about the review that is the problem, he is actually doing that, it is the "unprecedented" claim that is a LIE. He has also said words like "No other administration before me ...", etc. The problem, of course, is other administrations have done similar reviews, the Clinton administration being the last one.

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID

Source

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID

SINCE PRESIDENT OBAMA is running unopposed, I have to search elsewhere to find Democratic examples of, he he, "Untruths". Senator Reid, ranks right up with Senator McConnell in fabricating so-called facts, my personal opinion, however, is he doesn't match McConnell's volume of them.

On Aug 2, 2011, during a floor speech, Senator Reid said, "There was a "loss of eight million jobs during the Bush eight years." That is akin to McConnell saying President Obama promised to keep unemployment under 8%, both are pants-on-fire-falsehoods which misrepresents an actual number. In other words, it is a BIG FAT LIE.

The truth of the matter is that during Bush's eight years, he only lost .7 million private sector jobs, although State and Federal jobs grew by 1.8 million, leaving a net gain of 1.1 million. Don't feel too good yet, Conservatives. What Reid is quoting is the number of jobs lost from the zenith of employment in Jan 2008 to its nadir in Feb of 2010; in that time, 8.8 million jobs were lost as a result of the Great 2008 Recession (not Obama's policies). However, Senator Reid was almost right; from the beginning of Jan 2008 to the end of Jan 2009, when Bush left office, 6.2 million of those 8.8 million had lost their jobs. Another 700,000 went by the way-side in the next month, before Obama's stimulus program even got started! So, while Senator Reid was technically wrong, because the 6.2 million loss in Bush's last one year and one month, was off-set by a 7.3 million gain the previous 7 years, BTW, in the same period, Reid correctly pointed out, President Clinton presided over a 23 million growth in jobs during his eight years.

DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE

PROBABLY ONE OF THE MORE vociferous contributors to the art of political lying are the various political committees. I will start with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

1. In an April 18, 2011 web ad, the DCCC offered that "Seniors will have to find $12,500 for health care because Republicans voted to end Medicare." Well, not really. As much as I hate to say it, LIAR, LIAR, PANTS-ON-FIRE. First of all, seniors will have to find only $6,350, according to the CBO, the difference would have been paid anyway under Medicare as it is today. Next, they forgot to add the caveat, "as we know it." to their claim the "... Republicans voted to end Medicare." This is an important disclaimer since the Republican plan is not ending Medicare at all, just changing it a lot.

SENATOR BARBARA BOXER

IN A 2010 INTERVIEW, Senator Boxer says Condoleezza Rice didn't know how many troops had died in Iraq. On Aug 31, 2010, she was quoted as saying, regarding a 2007 Senate hearing where Ms. Rice was testifying, "I asked her how many people had died and she did not know the answer to that question...." The problem with that statement is that she NEVER asked Condoleezza Rice that question in 2007; Boxer is living in a world of revisionist history. BIG LIE!

Amazon on Politics

More by this Author


Comments 14 comments

JadeFitz profile image

JadeFitz 4 years ago from Atlanta, GA

Well I was all excited to read your article but it ended so abruptly that I feel a little let down. :) I also think there are more than two lies out there from the Obama camp. Never mind. Keep up the short, but good work. LOL!


zzron profile image

zzron 4 years ago from Houston, TX.

I don't feel that Obama's administration has the American people's best interest at heart. I am pretty sure that I'm not the only one that feels this way.


Daughter Of Maat profile image

Daughter Of Maat 4 years ago from Rural Central Florida

Ya, politifacts is not a healthcare provider. Preventative care does save money. If you catch a disease early, it's not only easier to treat, which saves money on procedures, but depending on the disease it could be cured. The problem with preventative care and the reason most think it's not cost effective is simply because most people don't go to the doctor like they should and once there, they rarely do what their doctor tells them. For the past 16 years in ophthalmology, I saw it repeatedly. We would tell a patient to come back in six months. The patient would show up two years later and need a drastic glaucoma surgery when if they had kept their original appointment the disease could have been taken care of with a much cheaper laser procedure.

I'm not saying Obama's healthcare reform is perfect, but we need universal healthcare and at least he made a step in the right direction.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Don't feel let down, @Jade, keep coming back, I will be adding more as I get more time to write, there is lot's of examples on this side of the aisle as well. Thanks for stopping by.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I appreciate you stopping by @Zzron. There is no question you are not alone, @Zzron, there is a guaranteed 15-20% of the electorate who are very fiscally Conservative or Socially Conservative or simply bigotted (I know a few down here in Florida) who will never see eye-to-eye with Obama for either political or racial reasons. Then you have about 5% who are Libertarians but aren't one of the previous groups mentioned.

Personally, I feel that you can't find one Presidential administration that didn't have America's best interest at heart (except for Dick Cheney, maybe). I vehemently disagreed with President G. W. Bush's policies, to the point that I think history will find him one of the worst presidents in our history, but, I never questioned where his heart lay. There is no doubt in my mind, Bush was doing what he "thought" was best for America, given his political philosophy, it just turned out to be very wrong.

However, what I have observed is that the further right or left one is along the political spectrum, the more they think a president's personal interests come ahead of America's interests.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for your perusal and comment DOM. What you wrote is what I thought, until I read Politifacts analysis, which is derived from health care professionals and CBO analysis. In my former life, I was the kind of analyst who might have worked at the CBO, in fact, a couple of my peers moved there from DoD, and I am sort of disappointed I didn't think of why preventative care isn't "necessarily" cost effective; it is, however, almost always "life saving" effective, which I will get to in a second.

The reasoning is this, to be "cost" effective for each specific disease being prevented, you have to spend less, in the total population, on the preventative care + the cost of caring for that disease once it occurs than you would caring for the occurance of that disease if there were no preventative care at all.

What studies have shown is that the cost of providing preventative care, especially for infrequently occuring diseases, to the total population far exceeds the cost for caring for it without it; that is because you are spending smaller amounts of money, in the first case, on everybody, while in the second case, you are spending larger amounts money on far fewer people.

Because of this, the problem gets very complex. You have to plot out each disease you want to prevent, for it is possible that 1) the cost of caring is so high, even though there aren't very many, that it is more than the cost of prevention and 2) even the cost of caring isn't that high, the frequency of the disease is high enough that it still makes cost sense to provide preventative care. Most preventable diseases, however, do not fall in one of these two categories.

There is one more factor that you, as well as myself, alluded to, that is often left out of these arguments; and it is what I closed with in my hub on this topic. That is, preventative care often 1) either measurably improves the quality of life or 2) actually saves lives. The reason this factor does not enter into the debate is because of the great difficulty of putting a value on either one of those two elements. If you could, I would think that for almost all diseases, the answer becomes quite clear, it is cost effective when you add the value of a life into the equation.

How do you value a life, quite controversially, of course. One way might be is to compute the average annual contribution each American contributes to the Gross Domestic Product of the country over his or her lifetime times the average number of years a life is shortened because of the lack of preventative care.

Just a thought.


Daughter Of Maat profile image

Daughter Of Maat 4 years ago from Rural Central Florida

Much of what you say may be quite accurate when it comes to other specialties, I myself can only speak for ophthalmology. I've seen repeated cases where preventative care was much less costly than procedures used as a last ditch effort to save vision. While vision is a very important sense to most of us, it doesn't hold the value that a human life does whch makes it perfect for this discussion.

Case in point: A patient comes in with an eye pressure of 26, high comparatively to the norm. We suggest a procedure known as Selective Laser Trabeculoplasty that is done in the office as an outpatient procedure and only costs about $1500 and cures the condition eliminating the need for pharamceutical treatment or major surgery. The patient doesn't show up for their appointment, or the insurance refuses to pay for the procedure, whatever, the procedure doesn't get done. The patient comes back with an even higher pressure, loss of the peripheral vision and now has to undergo a trabeculectomy which is a hospital or ambulatory surgical center procedure requiring anesthesia, surgical center fees and of course the fee for the procedure itself and the doctor. After the procedure, follow up care is required every 6 months, and since there is a large risk of infection, the likelihood of the need for pharmaceutical care is immensely high. The cost for the trabeculectomy? About $5,000.

Again, I can only speak for ophthalmology, but based on my experience preventative care in this specialty is EXTREMELY cost effective.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for the example DOM, for it makes me wonder if we aren't talking about two, slightly different "preventative" care options. I may be wrong, but I think the one under debate for ObamaCare are more mass spectrum type of preventative care procedures such as breast exams for women, prostate exams for men, dental cleaning for everybody (don't know if that is part of ObamaCare but it ought to be), a reasonably complete physical whose frequency is age or condition dependent, and not one of these brief once overs they give you now; things like that. I think the argument is that these ought to be provided without co-pay.

For your example, I would think that would be required coverage for any health plan, it seems like a no-brainer to me. I don't think it is preventative in the sense that there are no symptoms indicating a treatment but you get examined anyway, like there is in your example, but it certainly is preventative in preventing a worse condition to develope. Your example is clearly cost effective and insurance companies would be insane not to cover such a procedure; I take it some do not?


Daughter Of Maat profile image

Daughter Of Maat 4 years ago from Rural Central Florida

Interestingly, no many do not cover the laser treatment. I know, it's insane right?

I think we were talking about two different types of preventative care. In which case, I'd have to agree that type of preventative care is not cost effective, it's also not time efficient and would ultimately raise the cost of healthcare across the board. Of course, I think we're looking at healthcare in the wrong light. Preventative healthcare should be a holistic and diet centered approach. The best prevention is not to have anything to prevent in the first place. If we change the american diet, we'd eliminate diabetes, high blood pressure etc. I know this is off topic a bit, but I think it would be the most cost effective approach in the long run.

Obamacare is not the best health care reform, but I give him credit for trying, he's opened up the way for future discussion on its reform, which opens the way for change.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

ABSOLUTELY, DOM!!


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

ME, the problem with the GOP desire to change Medicare is that "change a lot" means basically changing it to a state of fundamental non-existence.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Good to see you, Credence. There are signifant chages, no doubt, buy Medicare as we know it, does survive, although it becomes voluntary and using vouchers to pay for it and giving insurance companies a lot more say in the matter. Would Medicare survive in the long-term, I think so because if the Ryan plan were actually made law, it wouldn't take long for the elderly to kick the Conservatives out and let the Democrats reinstate a more traditional Medicare.

Personally, I like the version Alice Rivlan, former Director of the CBO, proposed.


drantolic profile image

drantolic 3 years ago from Vancouver, Washington.

The problem is found in that Democracy is uncontrolled mob rule. It has never worked until people put limits on it, such as the Constitution, but the Democrats never wanted those limits, so the destory the foundation of American government, every chance they get. I refuse to even call a Democrat an American, for this reason.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

What is your historical or current proof of that assertion? Keep in mind, some of the historical Democrats are Anderw Jackson, the "father" of Democracy, Martin van Buren, James Polk, James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, and Grover Cleveland; each one, no less conservative than Ronald Reagan. Of course, all but Reagan supported, or at least ignored, slavery, opposed women's sufferage, in fact opposed anything that smacked of civil rights ... that, of course, is the hallmark stands of conservativism in America.

Today's Democrats (yesterday's Republicans and Whigs) fight hard to keep the advances in individual liberties which have been gained over the last century for ALL Americans, not just the landed-White Americans, against the relentless Conservative push to return to the status quo of the 18oos.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working