Health Care Wednesday: Crystal Ball Edition

Think Progress: Armey: Obama will hype up ‘outbreak of swine flu’ to get ‘bed-wetters’ to support health care reform.

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, who is currently one of the leading opponents of health care reform as the head of FreedomWorks, is not above telling lies in his quest to derail President Obama’s reform efforts. In a recent interview with the Financial Times, Armey went further than usual, positing a paranoid conspiracy theory about how Obama will push reform through Congress:

Mr Armey, 69, predicted that the “grassroots” backlash against what he called Mr Obama’s “hostile government takeover of a sixth of the US economy” would cause the reform to fail spectacularly. But he predicted that supporters of reform would attempt to win over the “bed-wetters caucus” – a group of wavering lawmakers who spanned both parties, he said – with a fear campaign in the autumn.

“In September or October there will be a hyped up outbreak of the swine flu which they’ll say is as bad as the bubonic plague to scare the bed-wetters to vote for healthcare reform,” said Mr Armey. “That is the only way they can push something on to the American people that the American people don’t want.”

Armey also told the FT that FreedomWorks does not “recommend” that conservatives disrupt town halls, but the organization’s president has encouraged activists to be “aggressive” while their vice president has refused to try to “calm down” the angry protesters.

Anonymous Liberal: Put This One in the Time Capsule

We don't yet know what the outcome will be of the current push to reform our health care system, but if we want to give future generations an idea of just how ridiculous the accompanying debate was, we should just save this "op-ed" from the Wall Street Journal and put it in a time capsule. Entitled "The Panel," it is a fictional account (written in the second person style of a choose-your-own-adventure novel) of a hearing before a government "death panel." It even includes a picture of three obnoxious-looking bureaucrats presiding over the fictional proceeding. I'm not making this up. You really have to read it yourself to appreciate the level of craziness on display, but here's a sampling:

"But without this procedure, I'll be dead before Christmas."

You try to keep the anger out of your voice. The last thing you want to do is offend them. But the politicians promised you—they promised everyone—there would never be panels like this. They made fun of anyone who said there would. "What do they think we're going to do? Pull the plug on grandma?" they chuckled. The media ran news stories calling all rumors of such things "false" or "misleading." But of course by then the media had become apologists for the state rather than watchdogs for the people.

In fact, the logic of this moment was inevitable. Once government got its fingers on the health-care system, it was only a matter of time before it took it over completely. Now there's one limited pool of dollars while the costs are endless.

Yes, the logic is inevitable. That's why we've had Medicare for 40 years and somehow managed to avoid the imposition of death panels. And it's so inevitable that despite the near universality of government-funded health care in the industrialized world, there aren't any examples of these death panels in other countries either. And while we're talking about "inevitable logic," are we really supposed to believe that a party that doesn't even have the cajones to defend a voluntary end-of-life counseling provision against blatantly false attacks--a party that immediately dropped a perfectly sensible provision when a crazy, discredited ex-governor screamed "death panels"--is really going to pass laws barring private insurance and private expenditure on health care and force people to defend their lives to before panels of government bureaucrats? Really? We're talking about a party that has a super-majority and still can't seem to pass even half-assed health care reform. The only "inevitable logic" when it comes to Democratic members of Congress is that they will find a way to cave, even in the face of broad public support.

Fallows: One more on the selling of "death panels"

A reader writes:

"I'm not sure if it has been pointed out yet, but the whole "Death Panel" bullshit is especially ironic given that the ability of insurance companies to grant/deny access to healthcare is effectively a death panel. Can't afford a plan? Tough luck. Not eligible for whatever reason? Tough luck."

This illustrates the biggest change in the rhetoric of health care reform over the past year. Last summer, during the campaign, Obama succeeded in focusing attention on the real problems of the patchwork insurance-and-care system as it actually exists: rising costs, bureaucratic inflexibility, perverse incentives, inevitable delays and de facto rationing, implicit decisions about life and death. Now, various opponents of a reform plan have succeeded in shifting attention to the imagined problems of a post-reform system: rising costs, bureaucratic inflexibility, perverse incentives, inevitable delays and de facto rationing, implicit decisions about life and death. It is an achievement to ponder.

Parable of the pizza order and health care reform Aug. 18: Republicans oppose single-payer, public option, and co-op insurance options in the healthcare reform bill, so what do they actually support? After an enlightening TRMS skit on ordering dinner, Rachel Maddow is joined by Richard Trumka, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Anonymous Liberal: The Mistake of Assuming the Existence of GOP Core Principles

In setting the stage for the current health care reform debate, the Obama administration made a significant (and in retrospect questionable) strategic decision; instead of following the typical Democratic playbook and framing the debate around covering the uninsured, they instead chose to frame the debate around the need to contain costs. At the time, this seemed like a brilliant idea. After all, it is universally acknowledged that the cost of health care is out of control and that something must be done to "bend the curve." By framing the debate in this way, you build momentum for change by emphasizing the unsustainability of the status quo. Moreover, containing the costs of programs like Medicare had long been a staple of GOP politics. By marrying health care reform to the goal of cutting costs, the Obama administration figured it could blunt many of the most likely criticisms from the GOP (e.g. that the Democrats were proposing some expensive new entitlement program).

But as the "death panel" discussion of the last few weeks has illustrated, the Obama administration appears to have committed the classic political error of underestimating the shamelessness of the GOP. The Obama administration assumed (incorrectly) that the GOP has core principles that it will not sacrifice for the sake of political expediency. They were wrong. The party that has spent the four decades attacking Medicare and trying to cut its expenditures is now openly accusing the Democrats of trying to kill senior citizens by taking away their Medicare coverage. Republican-affiliated groups are running ads warning seniors that the Democrats want to take away their health care and euthanize them. The party that has literally spent decades complaining about Medicare demagoguery on the part of Democrats is now itself engaged in Medicare demagoguery to a degree that would make even the most shameless Democratic politician feel uncomfortable.

There is a moral to this story. You can't outflank a party that doesn't feel tied to any particular policy position. The GOP will oppose the Democratic agenda using whatever means and whatever arguments it thinks will be effective, regardless of whether they contradict everything the party supposedly stands for. The sooner that Democrats understand this, the better able they'll be to deal with it.

UPDATE: To get a sense of the current state of our political discourse, check out this post at the National Review by Andy McCarthy (who, by the way, is now completely barking mad). McCarthy is angry at his own publication, the National Review, for publishing an editorial that ever so mildly admonishes Sarah Palin for her "death panel" remarks (while implicitly defending them). McCarthy writes:

I don't see any wisdom in taking a shot at Governor Palin at this moment when, finding themselves unable to defend the plan against her indictment, Democrats have backed down and withdrawn their "end-of-life counseling" boards. Palin did a tremendous service here. Opinion elites didn't like what the editors imply is the "hysteria" of her "death panels" charge. Many of those same elites didn't like Ronald Reagan's jarring "evil empire" rhetoric. But "death panels" caught on with the public just like "evil empire" did because, for all their "heat rather than light" tut-tutting, critics could never quite discredit it. ("BusHitler," by contrast, did not catch on with the public because it was so easily refuted.)

First, as is his wont, McCarthy lies pretty badly about what was actually being proposed. He characterizes a completely sensible and non-controversial provision (which was, until a few weeks ago, championed by key Republicans)--a provision that would have reimbursed doctors for voluntary counseling about living wills and health care directives--as creating "end-of-life counseling boards."

But then he goes truly off the deep end and compares this completely innocuous provision to an enemy state with thousands of nuclear missiles aimed at us. But that's not all, a little further down in the post he takes issue with the Editors grudging acknowledgment that Obama doesn't actually want to kill old people:

I happen to think that something like death panels is exactly what is desired by Obama — who is an abortion extremist, who supported a form of infanticide when he was an Illinois state legislator, and who has wondered aloud about the value of end-of-life care provided for his own grandmother.

He goes on to explain:

The whole point of health-care "reform" is to enable something other than the combination of individual liberty and market forces — namely, government bureaucrats — to do the inevitable rationing.

Of course, if we were to let "liberty and market forces" do the rationing when it comes to health care for the elderly, the result would be no health care for most elderly Americans. That's because elderly people consume a lot of health care and therefore it makes no economic sense for private insurers to cover them (at least at affordable rates). That's why we have Medicare in the first place. That's the problem Medicare was designed to solve. It is thanks to the "government bureaucrats" that grandma gets to go to the doctor at all.

So to sum up, McCarthy is livid about the (imaginary) evil death panels that Sarah Palin managed to save us from and believes that Obama wants to create such panels in order to cut off care for the elderly, thereby allowing them to "wither away prematurely" (which, apparently, Obama wanted to happen to his own grandmother). McCarthy, on the other hand, believes we should let "liberty and the market" take care of our elderly people, a suggestion that would demonstrably result in most elderly people not having access to health care.

This man--this lunatic--is writing for THE flagship conservative publication in this country.

Bill Maher on the GOP 'miniverse' Aug. 18: HBO's "Real Time" host Bill Maher joins Rachel Maddow to discuss new poll results: Republicans really believe health care reform myths, and that the disagreements actually start with the facts.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy