“Republicans voted to end Medicare” Labeled “Lie of the Year”

If you fundamentally change what something is and call it the same name, did you end what it used to be or did you just alter it in an inconsequential way? Leftists advocating the end of marriage by ending, for the first time in history of human civilization, it’s definition of being between male and female mock the idea that this radical move which a majority of the country is against is a threat to the institution of marriage.

Steve Benen unwittingly debunks the ruse of a radical change in what something always was, not being defined as an “end” to that something:

It seems foolish to have to parse the meaning of the word “end,” but if there’s a program, and it’s replaced with a different program, proponents brought an end to the original program. That’s what the verb means.

I’ve been trying to think of the best analogy for this. How about this one: imagine someone owns a Ferrari. It’s expensive and drives beautifully, and the owner desperately wants to keep his car intact. Now imagine I took the car away, removed the metallic badge off the trunk that says “Ferrari,” I stuck it on a golf cart, and I handed the owner the keys.

“Where’s my Ferrari?” the owner would ask.

“It’s right here,” I’d respond. “This has four wheels, a steering wheel, and pedals, and it says ‘Ferrari’ right there on the back.”

By PolitiFact’s reasoning, I haven’t actually replaced the car — and if you disagree, you’re a pants-on-fire liar.

I said “unwittingly” because Benen isn’t talking about the institution of marriage, he’s talking about Medicare. His argument is over Politifact.com awarding their 2011 “lie of the year” to the claim that Republicans voted to end Medicare. Benen and left wing columnist Paul Krugman railed against this alleged lie, claiming that it’s not a lie at all because although Medicare would still exist, it would be changed and thus a change is equal to an end.

The irony is dripping, as while the argument that Benen makes about change and ending is validly applicable to marriage, his intended target – applying it to Medicare – is invalid.

If you change the definition of something from what it always has been, then you have ended what it always have been and made something new and kept only the name just like the Ferrari analogy Benen makes.While this is what takes place under the destruction of the definition of marriage from being male/female, this is not what anyone voted for in Medicare. As Politifact points out:

 They ignored the fact that the Ryan plan would not affect people currently in Medicare — or even the people 55 to 65 who would join the program in the next 10 years.

 They used harsh terms such as “end” and “kill” when the program would still exist, although in a privatized system.

 They used pictures and video of elderly people who clearly were too old to be affected by the Ryan plan. The DCCC video that aired four days after the vote featured an elderly man who had to take a job as a stripper to pay his medical bills.

So apply those same points to the marriage issue and reveal Benens words to be applicable in all the cases where they are NOT to Medicare:

 Redefining marriage happens instantaneously wherever the redefinition is applied. No exemptions.

Traditional marriage advocates do NOT use harsh terms such as “end” and “kill” precisely because the institution would still exist, although under new definitions. Just like how, if one were to redefine the Boy Scouts to include girls, they have effectively destroyed the Boy Scouts since it is no longer what it was intended to be and always had been but it would be dishonest (a “lie of the year” perhaps) to claim that the Boy Scouts were killed or ended. Destruction of what once was took place, but not death or an end.

 No such dishonest propagandistic imagery is used by the Traditional Marriage advocates. While activists rely on the strawman argument of claiming that those who want to protect marriage are doing so under the belief that if gays so much as hold hands then the world will end in floods and fire, no such claims are made and no such propaganda is distributed.

A double blow for leftists today, as their smears against Republicans are highlighted while simultaneously and unintentionally highlighting the truth behind the Marriage argument.

Liberal bloggers and columnists contend it’s accurate to say Republicans voted to end Medicare. Left-leaning websites such as Talking Points Memo, Daily Kos, and The New Republic said PolitiFact’s analysis was wrong, as did New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

“According to (PolitiFact’s) logic, if the FBI were replaced with a voucher program wherein citizens would receive subsidies for hiring private investigators to look into criminal activity, but the agency running the voucher program were still called the FBI, it would be unfair to say that the FBI had been ended,”wrote Jed Lewison for Daily Kos. “I guess it’s their right to make that argument, but it’s transparently absurd.”

In a blog post, the DCCC stood by its claim, saying the ad accurately stated Ryan’s plan would “abolish” Medicare.

But PolitiFact was not alone. Other independent fact-checkers also said the claim was false.

“Medicare would remain an entitlement program, but it would also be more costly to future beneficiaries. It would not end,” noted FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. The Washington Post’s Fact Checker concluded that while there’s “a worthwhile debate” about whether Ryan’s proposal should be adopted, “it is not true to claim Republicans are trying to ‘kill’ Medicare.”

The Democratic attacks struck a chord. Polls showed voters were skeptical of the Ryan plan and want Medicare to remain largely the way it is now. That may be why the plan has virtually no prospects of passing the Senate, which voted to shelve the plan. President Obama has indicated he would veto any changes to Medicare that would privatize the program and substantially shift costs to beneficiaries.

HotAir covered the Micare smear topic earlier this year and alerts us that FactCheck also included it as one of the four “whoppers” of the year.  Their choices are bipartisan, two from each side, but the last one smacks Barack Obama hard:

  • The new health care law won’t cost many jobs (and they’ll be poorly paying jobs at that).
  • Republicans aren’t proposing to “end” Medicare (and Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden has signed onto a modified version of the GOP plan).
  • Most of the “millionaires” who would pay higher tax rates under a Democratic proposal aren’t job-creating small-business owners.
  • President Obama’s mother didn’t really fight to get health insurance coverage as she was dying.

 

Leave a Reply

Using Gravatars in the comments - get your own and be recognized!

XHTML: These are some of the tags you can use: <a href=""> <b> <blockquote> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>