Fallacious rhetorical tricks

These are errors in logic or fact that sound superficially right and can sway listeners who don't see through the deliberate fog. Obama and his people are well-versed in these tricks and use them frequently with the MSM unable or unwilling to call them on these.
The stimulus package is an example of misdirection.A problem was identified (economic slowdown and unemployment), one solution--spending-- (among others, such as tax cuts )was adduced and then myriad other spending initiatives were tacked on, however irrelevant to the original probleem. As Rahm Emanuel honestly said, No crisis should go to waste, meaning that the crisis will allow one to slip in other items from one's personal ( or party ) agenda.
The healthcare plan is being sold on the basis of the false dichotomy.We are told that the existing system is destined for bankruptcy and "therefore" doing nothing is unacceptabale and so change is required. Of course, being in the frying pan is destined for disaster but jumping into the fire has always been recognized as not an improvement.
There are many modifications that can and should be made to the current healthcare system without making it vastly worse and destroying what is arguably the best system in the world. We are lied to about the American system being inferior to others when people are always coming here and few Americans go elsewhere. The figures on infant mortality are skewed by differences in definition and those on longevity unmentioning of the quality of life issues that cause one quarter of expenditures being for the last year of life.It is clear, however much denied, that rationing of quality of life services for the elderly will inevitably occur (such as hip replacements) and even extension-of-life issues (Britain restricts availability of breast cancer medication.)
Another rhetorical trick is appeal to authority without substantial underpinning.We are TOLD, without any justification, that 2/3 of the cost of the House version of the healthcare plan is "covered" by identified savings. The assertion of "2/3" rather than, say, "all" is an attempt to use "pseudo-numerate" citation to convey the false idea that there is quantitative backing for the assertion. Citing the known incidence of "waste" is easily done but doing something about it ( or the equivalent things like "breakage", "repairs", "maintenance" ) is often impossible. Snap-On Tools makes a business out of replacing the predictable loss of tools although losing tools is clearly wasteful.
The "identified" savings seem to result from extorted promises from the insurance industry, hospitals and healthcare providers to provide either subsidies or to make fewer demands on Medicare and Medicaid. Whether these are realistic or, worse, what the consequences are of healthcare providers making fewer demands on Medicare, when the reimbursements are already inadequate, are unclear except that they will be negative concerning quality of care. The bullying-cum-extortion to extract such "promises" is obfuscatory and reflective of a bad mindset. Why AARP seems to go along when it is clear that rationing for seniors is the inevitable consequence is unknown but it's likely nefarious and reflective of bureaucracies that elevate the interests of the bureaucrats above those of the putative constituents. The AMA, with caveats, seemed to endorse some of the Democrat proposals but it represents only 10% of U.S. doctors and gets 90% of its revenue from insurance companies ( perhaps also true of AARP whose link to Colonial Penn Insurance is notorious.)
Making dramatic moves away from the "unacceptable" status quo that are clearly positive might include the following: tort reform and decoupling of health insurance and employment. Other countries do not have healthcare providers having to practice "defensive medicine" to preclude malpractice lawsuits. This has been estimated to be upwards of $100B/year and serves primarily to enrich tort lawyers.Caps or, better, special courts not subject to the vagaries of jury emotions would better define malpractice as deviation from accepted protocols rather than basing it on results only.
There is no good reason to provide health insurance through one's employment except for the historical artifact of WWII's salary caps. Certainly, the cost to an employer of health benefits represents money that could otherwise be deployed to salary except for the anomaly that benefits are deductible to the employer but not taxable to the employee. This is sure illogical and unjust to those who are self-employed or work for firms that cannot provide such benefits. We also have the peculiar circumstance that certain health "plans" are so gold-plated that they include massage therapy and spa sojourns. A simple expedient to take a reasonable step would be to TAX all employment-provided benefits as income and offset a maximum amount as a tax-deductible expense. This would level the playing field for the employed and the self-insured and identify certain Cadillac plans as not related to health at all. Eventually, there would be no reason to link employment and health insurance and dislocations of changing or losing jobs would not have the present difficulties. Another simple money-saver would be to abandon state mandates that result in states like Illinois requiring insurance for chiropractic ( a strong chiro lobby exists in Illinois ) and, who knows, perhaps aromatherapy/marriage counseling/foot massages.