The Obama Administration basically lied on Monday, March 16th, when it said that it had reduced the percentage of healthcare uninsured Americans from 20.3% down to 13.2% — and the ‘news’ media in this country stenographically reported their lie, without noting that it is a lie; and without noting that the real figures are 14.6% reduced down to 12.9%.
The press also crucially avoided to mention that when Senator Obama ran for President in 2008 he was promising the country that his plan would reduce the uninsureds rate down to 0%, so that there would be (and he kept promising this) “universal coverage” (which means a 0% uninsureds rate).
This government-lying, and press-stenography of the lies, are both like the government lies and press-stenography about Saddam Hussein and Iraq were in 2002 and 2003, and the government lies and press-stenography about Vladimir Putin and Ukraine are today: it is government of the public, by deceit, in which the nation’s press is complicit with the lying of government officials, so that real democracy becomes impossible — people end up voting on the basis of lies (which hide the real problems and solutions, things that would reduce the aristocracy’s power).
Here are the details of this sad state of affairs, regarding specifically lying about Obamacare:
The government report on which the allegation is based shows the period from October 2013 up to the present time. In October 2013, the uninsured rate (as the Obama team cruched the numbers) was 20.3%. At the present time it is 13.2%.
To a naive and unquestioning reader (who doesn’t even think about what “universal coverage” means), that sounds pretty good. However, here is how the government jiggered the figures in order to make it seem that way (to the naive masses), when it’s not:
The data upon which the government’s graph is based come from Gallup’s ongoing samplings of the public. Gallup has independently and much more honestly graphed the uninsured percentages going back to the time when the first Presidential primaries were being held in 2008 and when all three of the leading Democratic Presidential aspirants (Clinton, Obama, and Edwards) were promising “universal coverage,” something which already exists in all other developed countries (100% of the population having health insurance), and when all three of those Democratic candidates were offering essentially the same plan (except that Obama’s didn’t include the individual mandate, but the plan that he proposed to Congress in 2009 did include that, so the plan that he proposed as President was basically the exact same one that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards had been proposing — and all three of them were lying).
Here is the Gallup graph:
As you can see, the rate of uninsureds when Obama was promising a 0% rate or “universal coverage,” was 14.6%. The rate now is 12.9%
What Obama (his hires) is doing now is to compare as the starting-gate the uninsured rate that pertained when the rate was at the all-time high in October 2013, after years of people getting off of their existing health plans because they couldn’t afford them or were expecting something much better to open up under the new Obamacare health exchanges, and to compare that all-time-high rate to the rate now.
As you can see from this chart, the uninsured rate peaked at 18.0% at that time, the time when people started signing up for Obamacare. This rate was 3.4% higher than the 14.6% rate at the starting-gate, back in 2008, when Obama (and Clinton, and Edwards) were promising a 0% rate, “universal coverage.”
There is a difference between the way that Gallup calculates these percentages from their surveys, and the way that Obama does — the Obama team shows this graph instead of Gallup’s:
As you can see, their method of crunching the numbers comes up with consistently higher figures for percentages of the population who are uninsured.
Here is an example of the stenographic ‘news’ reporting we get of such government-lying, in the United States.
That’s from a Democratic Party ‘news’ organization — i.e., from one that’s controlled by a ‘liberal’ aristocrat. (Liberal aristocrats do, however, tolerate critical coverage of Democratic policies, but only up to a point. And aristocrats, even of the opposite or conservative side, will never say that a President is “lying.”) Here’s ‘coverage’ of this ‘news’ from the Republican — i.e., right-wing fascist — side of the aristocracy: they ignore it altogether, because the flim-flam from the ‘liberal’ side makes the ‘liberal’ look good, and because the job of right-wing fascist ‘journalism’ isn’t to do real investigative journalism but instead to keep pumping out the lies that sustain right-wing fascism. (And right-wing fascist aristocrats won’t let anything through that criticizes fascism, at all. They are fascist purists. They’re just more extreme than liberal fascists.) American ‘journalism’ thus is basically a good-cop-bad-cop routine, between fascism, and extreme fascism.
If Republican aristocrats were to attack a ‘Democrat’ like Obama in an honest and truthful way, they’d point out that:
Obamacare increases the insureds-rate by 87.7%/85.4%, or 2.7% since 2008.
Obamacare increases insureds from 85.4% up to 87.7%.
Candidate Obama’s promise of “universal” meant 100%.
Obama lied in his top campaign-proposal; there was no way it could even possibly produce 100%.
But for them to do that, they would be attacking Obama from the progressive side, which is the exact opposite side from the aristocracy: it’s the public’s side. So: they can’t honestly attack Obama — and he knows this. All they can do is lie against him — which they thus constantly do.
On both “the left” and “the right” side of the aristocracy, there is a deeper unity: the aristocracy’s unity is against the public.
They’ve got to keep us controlled, voting for their ‘left’ and ‘right’ politicians.
Here are the main previous articles I’ve done specifically on Obama’s lies about ‘universal coverage’ under Obamacare:
This “universal healthcare” thing is an ongoing lie from Obama, because there is (as I explained here) no way that the plan that he proposed, nor the one that he selected Senator Max Baucus to design to meet his intentions and ram through Congress, could even possibly produce a 100% insureds-rate, or “universal coverage.” The rest of the industrialized world has it (and has better healthcare at lower prices), but we still don’t.
Thank America’s aristocracy — both wings of it (and their press) — for that.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.