Dennis is so excited about yesterday. He was pretending to have read the House health care bill, doling out bits of “sunshine” as he feverishly read through through the text, exposing its nefarious schemes to socialize American life. Rehberg was excited, the Montana media was excited, and the Park County Republicans had to clean up after themselves:
Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT) went to town on Facebook and Twitter in Sarah Palin fashion yesterday, exposing the nearly 2000 page Pelosi-care bill that was “unveiled” in a closed-to-the-public ceremony the other day. What wasn’t unveiled in that event was put under a spotlight on Rep. Rehberg’s page.
You know was most excited, though? Probably Rush Limbaugh and the insurance company executives that Rehberg cribbed his comments from, many of which were flat out lies.
Let’s put Rehberg’s posts on Facebook side by side with the transcript of Limbaugh’s program yesterday, and see how much independent thinking Representative Rehberg was really doing.
| Rehberg | Limbaugh |
| Page 297 imposes a tax on all individuals who do not purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health insurance | Page 297 — Section 501: “Imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase ‘bureaucrat-approved’ health insurance — the tax would apply on individuals with incomes under $250,000, thus breaking a central promise of then-Senator Obama’s presidential campaign.” |
| Page 225 permits *but does not require* Members of Congress to enroll in government-run health care | Page 225 — Section 330: “Permits — but does not require — Members of Congress to enroll in government-run health care.” So they’ll be able to opt out of it and maintain their Cadillac plans. |
| Page 94 prohibits sale of private individual health insurance policies forcing you to go through fed government | Page 94, Pelosi plan: “Prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government.” In 2013, after the 2012 presidential election. In 2013, there is no private insurance allowed. The sale of it will be prohibited. |
| Page 211 establishes new gov’t-run health plan that may cause as many as 114 million to lose existing coverage | Page 211 — Section 321: “Establishes a new government-run health plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries at the Lewin Group, would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage.” |
| Page 313 imposes 8% “tax on jobs” on firms that can’t afford “bureaucrat-approved” health coverage | Page 313 — Section 512: “Imposes an 8 percent ‘tax on jobs’ for firms that cannot afford to purchase ‘bureaucrat-approved’ health coverage; according to an analysis by Harvard Professor Kate Baicker, such a tax would place millions ‘at substantial risk of unemployment’ — with minority workers losing their jobs at twice the rate of their white counterparts.” |
| Page 520 cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, hurting at least 26,000 Montana seniors | Page 520 — Section 1161: “Cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans.” |
| Page 336 imposes a half-trillion dollar “surcharge,” more than half of which will hit small businesses | Page 336 — Section 551: “Imposes additional job-killing taxes, in the form of a half-trillion dollar ‘surcharge,’ more than half of which will hit small businesses; |
| The bill requires applicants to verify their citizenship, but not to verify identity | Page 255 — Section 345: “Includes language requiring verification of income for individuals wishing to receive federal health care subsidies under the bill — while the bill includes a requirement for applicants to verify their citizenship, it does not include a similar requirement to verify applicants’ identity, |
It’s certainly interesting to see that Rehberg managed to not only hit on all of the arguments advanced by Limbaugh, but he used the same language. I wonder if it’s possible that Limbaugh and Rehberg were using the same playbook, while Rehberg pretended to be evaluating the bill.
In what is perhaps the most astonishing twist, Limbaugh was more honest than Rehberg. Consider the claim about a loss of 114 million people losing coverage. Rehberg leaves out that claim comes from the Lewin Group—and for good reason. The Lewin Group is a wholly-owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, one of the largest private insurers in the country.
I’ll get back to the rest of the specious talking points that Rehberg is being fed later, but at a basic level, how can we trust Rehberg, who is presenting himself as some consumer champion, when all he is really doing is parroting talking points from insurance companies and the far right?
It’s an embarrassment, and it’s a damn shame that the media couldn’t search to find the source for the claims before promoting Rehberg’s “work.”
Article by Don Pogreba
Don has written 1332 posts for us. He is an English and debate teacher in Helena, MT. When not writing here or working on debate handbooks, he is writing about educational issues at Prairie Pedagogue.
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
Safe to assume that you’ve actually read the entire piece of legislation, all 1,990 pages, right Pogie?
1) I’m not pretending to have done so, unlike a certain member of Congress or radio talk show host.
2) The portions I am discussing are clear misrepresentations of fact, logic, and even basic reading comprehension.
3) How many pieces of legislation do you believe Rehberg has read in his Congressional career? Why the sudden concern for the text?
I’m kind of curious as to how you came across a transcript for Rushbo’s show from yesterday and were able to make such an amazing connection so quickly…you wouldn’t be parroting someone else would you?
You did listen to Rush yesterday and came to these conclusions all on your own, correct?
I have an amazing tool available for you to look at.
It’s called GOOGLE.
I read Rehberg’s comments, and immediately used THE GOOGLE.
Look into it.
Why did you cite NO source for you findings in your posting?
Use the google.
Should I cite Limbaugh’s transcript? Or Rehberg’s facebook page?
The only thing that would have required a citation in an academic setting was the reference to the Lewin Group, which is a relatively well-known fact.
in case it helps, Sourcewatch provides that information.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lewin_Group
Now that we have your little red herring out of the way, care to address the appropriateness of a member of Congress parroting talking points from Rush Limbaugh and presenting them as his own opinions?
Thanks for the Lewin Group link? But that doesn’t answer my question… WHERE did YOU find the transcript?
What makes you so certain that they didn’t come to the same conclusions independently?
This really is one of your weaker attempts to discredit Denny. LOL
Are you as dim as you pretend?
It’s the same language, for the love of the God–the exact same phrases. It’s the same list of complaints, down to the last detail.
In less than day, two people independently came up with the same concerns, using the same language in a 1900 word bill?
Come on. You’re embarrassing yourself here.
Dude, I’m pretty sure the bar for Rusty to feel embarrassed at himself is a lot lower than that!
But seriously, Pogie, this is a pretty good analysis using The Google! I didn’t realize Denny was quite such a Dittohead! What a doofus. What an embarrassment to our state.
I don’t think I’ve read your blog before–I came here from LitW today. I’ll be back!
Did you ever consider that maybe the Republican Party was combining its resources to examine the more outrgeous provisions in Pelosi’s 1,990-page monstrosity? Pretty weak to suggest Denny is parroting Rush. More likely they’re both using the same source …
http://www.gop.gov/blog/09/10/29/fact-check-and-details-about
WHAT R U DOING?! THIS ISN’T ABOUT FACTS, THIS IS ABOUT DENNY & RUSH & THEIR SHENANIGANS OR SOMETHING!!1!
HOW DARE YOU INJECT FACTS INTO THIS DEBATE!!1! >=[
Stick to South Park. It’s marginally less tiresome.
I think you’re missing my point. I know and everyone else knows this is a coordinated smear campaign by the Republicans and the insurance industry.
What’s amusing is how Rehberg is presenting these “findings” as if they are the result of his personal work reading through the bill. That’s just sad.
Here’s another link with the exact items you’ve cited …
http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/09/10/29/reading-guide–pelosi
Are you surprised that Republicans are working together to expose the truth and show Americans just how bad this legislation is?
Thanks for posting the links, Ralph. Guess we jumped to the conclusion that Denny is a capital-D Dittohead. But not about the lying part. Did you notice the very first item on that gop.gov list?
A grossly misleading read (as flagged by Pogie in his next post!)–much like the second item on the GOP list, regarding federal coverage of abortions.
So in answer to your question, no, I’m still not surprised by Republicans. However, if they ever do provide an honest argument to show flaws in the House legislation, I will be surprised. There are plenty of flaws, but so far they’re only being exposed by progressives, not by rightwingers.
Truth? Really? Truth?
Like citing an insurance company front group as a non-partisan, non-biased observer? Like claiming the bill outlaws private insurance when it doesn’t?
Not too much truth there.