BREAKING NEWS: GOP Proposal Would Abolish Military, Public Schools, Fire and Police Departments and the Entire Federal Government

The GOP has pushed its argument regarding the uselessness of government to the logical conclusion: It has adopted a political platform that urges the abolition of the United States military, public schools, fire and police departments and the entire federal government. Dissenting Justice has been investigating the details of this developing story for over two weeks. Today, the GOP has authorized Dissenting Justice to release information regarding the plan.

Chairman Steele Endorses the Plan
The dramatic development comes after weeks of Republican criticism of Democrats' efforts to nationalize the healthcare industry and to control all aspects of medical practice, including the delicate decision to pull the plug on grandma. RNC Chair Michael Steele lauded the decision, stating that:

I was starting to sound like a fucking idiot blasting socialized medicine while trying to defend other government services. If Obamacare sucks, then it is likely that all other government services suck too. This brilliant plan will keep those pinko Nazi liberals off my back while I continue bringing hip hop to the GOP.

The Plan's Architect: Senator John McCain
Senator John McCain disclosed to Dissenting Justice that he devised the no-government strategy. Since his unsuccessful election bid, McCain has struggled to compete with louder and more outlandish conservatives like Sarah "the Bloggacuda" Palin, Chuck "Over My Grandma's Dead Body" Grassley, Dick "Am I Still V.P." Cheney, and Rush "Please Hush" Limbaugh.

McCain believes that his provocative proposal could give him more prominence and stature among conservatives. If the plan does not work out as he intends, McCain says that:

I would either retire or move to the political center again. It doesn't really matter to me at this point. I'm getting up there in age, you know. But if Obamacare passes, the government would immediately order me to die. So, I cannot think about failure at this point.

When asked by Dissenting Justice why he would propose abolishing the government after a long career in Congress and less than one year after he tried to become president, McCain said: "I lost. Besides, I never claimed that I was entirely consistent."

When asked how he made the decision to abolish the military in which he served with valor, McCain said that:

Those crazy Democrats almost got me killed in Vietnam, which was unfair. The government should never choose who lives or dies. Only the private sector should make decisions like that. When the government gets involved, it's like communism, which was what we said we were fighting over there in Asia.

When Dissenting Justice reminded McCain that he volunteered to serve in Vietnam, he responded: "You guys really do your homework, don't you?" McCain also said that he "wonders whether the outcome of the Vietnam War would have differed if the private sector handled the situation." McCain seems to have a lot more faith in the private sector, concluding that: "Socialized national security systems are probably just as bad as socialized medicine or even Social Security."

Seniors Respond
Even though the GOP plan would cause the immediate end of Medicare and Social Security, some seniors applaud the Republican proposal. Bonnie Franklin, a 75-year-old retired nurse who lives in Milford, Connecticut, says the plan "proves that Republicans are more interested in the health of the nation than the Democrats." Franklin, who has no income other than Social Security, says that: "Democrats believe the government can do everything. Spend. Spend. Spend. When will it all end?"

When Dissenting Justice asked Franklin how she planned to survive without Social Security and Medicare, she did not reply. Instead, she looked very confused. Dissenting Justice then told Franklin that the federal government administers Social Security and Medicare and that the abolition of the federal government would end those programs. Upon hearing this information, Franklin abruptly stormed out of the interview, yelling: "I wasn't born yesterday, kid. You are just trying to be cute. Have fun interviewing me. Not!"

No Specific Details
Although the plan lacks any specific details, the Republicans promise to provide them later. "Don't get all concerned over minutiae," said Steele. Steele argued that:

The opposing party does not have to supply specifics. All we need to do is criticize. Get it? We are clearly going beyond the call of duty. I am so tired of the liberal media saying the same things over and over again. Get a real job people.

The next day, Steele called Dissenting Justice and apologized for making his comments. Steele said that he had "taken himself out of context."

REPEAT AFTER ME: Medicare = Public Plan = Government-Run Health Program = Government-Sponsored Health Plan

The Republicans have shamelessly attempted to scare seniors away from Democrats by preaching the horrors of government-run health plans. This argument, however, is absolutely bankrupt, particularly because Medicare, the primary healthcare payer for all seniors, is the largest public plan in the nation. The federal government designed and enacted Medicare. The federal government determines the amount of reimbursement for doctors and the type of services that are covered. Taxpayers pay for the expenses associated with Medicare. Doctors and patients, as usual, get to select the treatments they pursue.

Prior to Medicare, seniors could only get full health insurance coverage at an extreme cost. Most seniors had only partial coverage or none at all. Full coverage in the private sector was not an option for most seniors, just as full coverage in the private sector is not an option for millions of Americans today.

Republicans, however, opposed Medicare and have always described it as one of the main problems of LBJ's administration -- joining social security enacted during FDR's administration. According to the conservative script, Medicare = social security = welfare = evil "entitlement programs," enacted by "big government" and "big spending" liberal Democrats. Today, however, Republicans are pretending to favor Medicare, while generally describing public plans as socialized medicine. Seniors should find this approach insulting. Sane Republicans should find it embarrassing.

THE END

Possible Part II: Veterans Administration = Public Plan = Government-Run Health Program = Government-Sponsored Health Plan.

GOP's "Pack of Lies for Seniors"

Apparently, the Republicans believe that they can make a run for seniors by continuing to scare the hell out of them. It all started with Sarah Palin's "death panels" lie. Now, they are fueling the notion that the Democrats are a threat to Medicare -- even the conservatives have blasted Medicare and the notion of "public plans" for decades.

On Monday, the Republicans released a Bill of Rights for Seniors. RNC Chair Michael Steele also published an op-ed in the Washington Post that analyzes the Republicans' platform for seniors. Steele's op-ed simply regurgitates deceptive talking points that conservatives have circulated around the Internet since the beginning of healthcare reform debates. The GOP's "Bill of Rights for Seniors" is nothing but a "List of Lies."

Steele makes 5 broad points in his essay. Each one tells a different lie.

Lie #1: Democrats Want to Raid Medicare; Republicans Want to Save It
Steele argues that "[Obama] and congressional Democrats are planning to raid, not aid, Medicare by cutting $500 billion from the program to fund his health-care experiment." Steele's argument that Democrats are the opponents of Medicare while Republicans are fans of the plan is absolutely bogus.

Republicans have for a long time opposed Medicare. Ronald Reagan joined the American Medical Association's campaign against Medicare during the 1960s, describing the idea as "socialized medicine." Republicans have a long history of opposing "public plans" and describing them as socialism. Although Steele's op-ed does not admit this point, medicare is a public plan.

With respect to Medicare cuts, every major presidential candidate -- Democrat and Republican -- who proposed healthcare reform also advocated cutting Medicare costs. John McCain, for example, wanted to slash $1.3 trillion dollars from Medicare and Medicare over a ten-year period. Mitt Romney also frequently discussed the need to cut spending on entitlement programs, including Medicare.

Furthermore, Steele argues that the Democrats want to cut $500 billion from Medicare, but he neglects to discuss additional funding to the program that they have proposed. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that taking into consideration both cost cutting and increased spending, Obama's plan would trim $219 billion from Medicare over 10 years -- which is much less than Steele's figure and than what McCain proposed. Steele's analysis of this issue is hypocritical and factually inaccurate.

Lie #2: Healthcare Reform Gets in the Way of Seniors and Their Doctors
Steele shamelessly argues that: "The government-run health-care experiment that Obama and the Democrats propose will give seniors less power to control their own medical decisions and create government boards that would decide what treatments would or would not be funded."
Although Steele paints a picture of a scary "government-run health-care experiment," he neglects to describe Medicare as a government-run health program. Under Medicare (and Medicaid and Veterans health plans), the government already determines what types of treatments are covered and the reimbursement for those procedures. Steele's argument describes a fantasy world where Medicare is presumably a private entity where doctors and patients can do whatever they want, unconstrained by governmental coverage decisions. Private insurance does not operate this way either. Steele is either ignorant or a liar. Neither option is good.

Also, Republicans strongly support the Hyde Amendment, which bans coverage of abortion for Medicaid recipients. Republicans, have in fact, demonized proposed healthcare reform by falsely stating that it would fund abortion services. This type of governmental intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship is apparently fine for Republicans. So, in addition to being ignorant or a liar, Steele is a hypocrite.

Lie #3: Obama Wants to Ration Care Based on Age
Steele says that care should not be rationed based on age. No version of healthcare reform proposed by any Democrat would do this. Steele is lying yet again.

Lie #4: Democrats Will Dictate End of Life Care for Seniors
Steele repeats the discredited "death panel" lie told by Sarah Palin and Charles Grassley. He claims that end-of-life care "becomes troublesome when the government gets involved." Perhaps that is true, but Steele's description of the Democrats' proposals is intentionally deceptive. The proposals would only compensate doctors who provide end-of-life counseling to patients. The proposals do not mandate the care.

This is the same thing as a governmental decision to pay for mammograms or a heart surgeries (which government insurance plans already do). Paying for treatment or counseling does not mandate it, nor does it get the government "involved" in the treatment. Steele is lying yet again.

Lie #5: Democrats Are Ending Veterans' Benefits
Steele argues that "we need to protect our veterans by preserving Tricare and other benefit programs for military families." He leaves the impression that Democrats want to discontinue these programs, but he can only state that some Democrats proposed raising premiums for Tricare -- which are far less than insurance premiums on the open market. Why? Tricare is a public plan -- the kind of government-sponsored plan that Republicans claim will lead to socialism, communism, and Armageddon.

Perhaps seniors could benefit from a "Bill of Rights." Unfortunately, the Republicans have only given them a pack of lies.

The Debate Over Seniors and Healthcare Reform: A Slew of Contradictions and Inaccuracies

The debate over healthcare for seniors has included numerous contradictions and inaccuracies. The topic became an unnecessary lightening rod after several conservative politicians falsely asserted that the pending House legislation would create "death panels" to determine whether the elderly could live or die. Although numerous commentators have discredited this idea, the issue of healthcare reform and seniors remains subject to distortion and contradictions.

Fear Surrounding Medicare
Many seniors are also nervous because President Obama seeks to cut billions of dollars from Medicare over 10 years. These savings would theoretically help to offset the costs associated with broader healthcare reform, including the implementation of a public plan.

Although cuts to Medicare are a legitimate concern for seniors, the discussion of this issue has involved highly inaccurate portrayals of the proposed legislation. Furthermore, some conservatives (including seniors) have reacted to the proposed Medicare cuts in a way that contradicts their purported ideology.

"Illegal Aliens"
Many conservative opponents of healthcare reform contend that Democrats are cutting Medicare benefits in order to finance the provision of healthcare to "illegal aliens." Every plan under consideration, however, excludes undocumented individuals from coverage. Nevertheless, people continue to raise this scarecrow argument as a basis for opposing reform.

Although sound arguments (and even Supreme Court precedent) could justify the provision of medical care to certain classes of undocumented individuals (like children), the proposed legislation does not provide such coverage. Federal law, however, already requires emergency rooms to treat everyone who seeks care, and many undocumented individuals receive medical services in emergency rooms. It would be unconscionable to deny care to individuals in an emergency setting. People can disagree with this assertion -- but this is already the status of the law; the proposed reforms have nothing to do with this issue.

Furthermore, in certain emergency situations, denying care to an undocumented person could result in a lack of treatment for a United States citizen. For example, an undocumented pregnant woman who arrives at an emergency room in labor needs medical care for herself and for her child. The child is a United States citizen even though the mother is not. Post-natal services could also benefit the undocumented mother and the citizen child. It might also be impossible to determine whether someone is undocumented or not before rendering care (e.g., a person incapacitated by a car accident, stroke, etc.). Finally, as a reader (Broadsnark) points out in the comments section, treating undocumented individuals can advance the health of the public (think: preventing the spread of contagious disease).

The Democrats/Obama Want to Cut Costs; Costs = Services
Many conservatives argue that cutting Medicare costs will lead to the inevitable erosion of services. Conservative organizations and politicians have exploited this issue in an effort to alienate Democrats and seniors, who are faithful voters who tend to favor Democrats. Although this strategy might generate some benefits for Republicans, the conservative portrayal of Democrats as the enemies of Medicare is awfully hypocritical and dishonest for several reasons.

First, every major presidential candidate who promised to reform the healthcare system also discussed cutting Medicare costs. In October 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported that John McCain intended to finance his healthcare plan (which would have provided tax credits to purchase insurance) by slashing expenditures associated with Medicare and Medicaid. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's senior policy adviser, argued that McCain's plan would cut costs without compromising care: "It's about giving them the benefit package that has been promised to them by law at lower cost. . . ." Independent analysis estimated that McCain's plan would have stripped over $1 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid.

The following footage from an April 2008 townhall meeting in Allentown, Pennsylvania shows McCain making the case for reducing Medicare expenditures, while maintaining the quality of care.

(Article continues below the video)


Even Mike Huckabee -- the most conservative of the Republican contenders -- advanced cost-reduction as a method of reforming the healthcare system. Although Huckabee never created a detailed reform package, as governor of Arkansas and as a presidential candidate, he emphasized prevention of illness as a way to cut costs and to make healthcare affordable.

The "erratic" Mitt Romney also endorsed Medicare expenditure cuts. While he was Governor of Massachusetts, Romney presided over the implementation of universal healthcare in state. Nevertheless, during his presidential campaign, he repeatedly emphasized the need to cut costs of entitlement programs, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Despite the bipartisan support for cutting Medicare costs, many seniors now accuse Democrats of attempting to compromise their well being. Some of these individuals have apparently sought solace in conservative membership organizations. But conservatives -- not liberals -- have been very hostile to Medicare (see below).

Conservatives Oppose "Public Plans," Including Medicare
Conservatives who portray Democrats as the enemies of Medicare are acting in a shamefully hypocritical fashion. Conservatives have a long history of opposing and criticizing Medicare. In the 1960s Ronald Reagan gave his voice to "Operation Coffeecup," a political movement organized by the AMA to block the passage of Medicare. Reagan and other conservatives described the proposed legislation as "socialized medicine" and argued that it was a step towards totalitarianism. In an October 2008 speech, Sarah Palin approvingly quoted Reagan's statements regarding the oppressive nature of Medicare.

Medicare is the largest public health plan in the nation. Conservatives have a long history of describing public plans as socialized medicine. Using the frightening (but empty) rhetoric of socialized medicine, conservatives attacked Medicare, the failed Clinton reforms in 1992, the State Children's Health Insurance Program (Bush vetoed additional funds for this program two times), and the current proposal for a public plan option.

Accordingly, conservatives who portray liberals as a threat to seniors, who rely almost exclusively upon Medicare for their healthcare needs, are engaging in utter hypocrisy. Seniors who benefit from Medicare, but who accept the conservative rhetoric of "socialized medicine," are also behaving like hypocrites.

Final Thoughts
I am interesting in hearing more about Obama's proposal to cut costs related to Medicare. Part of the reduction would come from lower drug costs, and he has already negotiated a deal with pharmaceutical companies. Undoubtedly, many of the cuts would result from a reform in the way the government compensates Medicare providers, and it could include raising premiums on wealthier seniors.

Although cutting costs does not translate necessarily into a compromise in the quality of healthcare, it might result in a different mix of available services. But this should not defeat the plan. Medicare already covers and denies coverage for certain services. Private insurance companies do so as well -- and the notion that individuals can negotiate around this is gross distortion. Try going on the "open market" and getting coverage for a pre-existing condition.

I am interested in having an honest discussion regarding Medicare and cost reductions. Unfortunately, fearmongering keeps getting in the way.

UPDATE: I neglected to mention that during the presidential campaign, Obama equated McCain's proposed cuts in Medicare expenses with cuts in services. So, he on some level, he is receiving the same criticism that he offered McCain. FactCheck.Org has written on this subject.

Do Seniors Really Oppose Healthcare Reform: Fox News Article Omits Several Crucial Details

Fox News reports that AARP is experiencing a membership backlash because the organization supports some aspects of Democrat-sponsored healthcare reform. According to the article, some seniors have slashed their AARP cards, and critical audience members forced AARP to end a healthcare townhall meeting in Dallas. The Fox article, however, fails to elaborate on some interesting and important details.

Missing Links
According to Fox's own opinion data, 56 percent of "seniors" (not defined) do not want a public plan option for "all Americans." Although the proposed healthcare legislation contains a public plan option, the plan would not be available to "all Americans."

Furthermore, Fox's data indicates that 93% of seniors rated their own coverage as "good" or "excellent." Most of these individuals, however, are probably covered by Medicare -- the nation's largest public plan. This statistic undermines the common conservative trope about the horrors of Medicare and "socialized medicine" for patients. It also calls into question the seniors' own opposition to expanding government-sponsored healthcare.

More importantly, the Fox article also reports that "[o]ther groups representing seniors say they aren't surprised by the recent backlash." In support of this claim, the article reports the views of only one other membership organization -- the American Seniors Association. The article, however, fails to disclose that ASA represents the views of conservative seniors.

The article quotes Stuart Barton, ASA's president, who says that his group receives "letters every single day from people that [sic] are very upset about this bill and about the AARP supporting it. . . ." Barton also says that he does not "blame [people] for coming back and saying they are going to tear up their AARP cards." Stunningly, the Fox article fails to report that ASA is running an open campaign on its website that encourages individuals to "tear up their AARP cards." If the individual mails in the torn-up card, he or she would become eligible for a two-year membership in ASA for the price of a one-year membership. Naturally, Barton has received some torn-up AARP cards. But this does not prove a wave of opposition to healthcare reform among seniors -- even conservative seniors.

Moreover, ASA, as an organization, openly opposes Democrat-sponsored healthcare reform. Barton has floated the utterly false notion that the proposed legislation will force people to " go to counseling every five years to basically learn how to die. . . ." Instead, the legislation would cover the costs associated with providing counseling related to living wills, medical directives, and other end-of-life issues that seniors (and others) face.

After the Terry Schiavo incident, many Americans raced to obtain living wills. This did not mean that they wanted to or expected to die. Instead, the surge demonstrated that people wanted to exercise greater control over their destinies. Providing this type of counseling is good medicine.

Often this type of advice only becomes available when, as in the Schiavo case, it is too late for the patient to participate actively in the decision making process and when friends and family members are distraught over the situation. It is difficult to understand how this component of the legislation could become a lightening rod -- absent any gross distortion of its meaning.

Additional Points
Perhaps seniors should have real concerns about healthcare reform, but I find it odd - and even hypocritical - that so many of them could oppose a public plan, given their own satisfaction with Medicare. Perhaps their real concern is with the government's planned effort to reduce the costs of Medicare to help finance healthcare reform. But saying "spend more on us, not them" is certainly not a principled conservative (or liberal) position on government-sponsored health insurance.

Finally, in the interest of full disclosure Fox should have reported the political views of ASA and its president. Even though many people have nonpartisan objections to healthcare reform, this organization is clearly hostile to the proposed reforms and to AARP for supporting them. Furthermore, Fox only presented the views of this one group, even though the article states that other "groups" disagree with AARP. After digging (for just a few minutes) about ASA, I wonder how large this "backlash" against AARP really is.