An ObamaCare architect freely admits they had to lie to the voters to get the law passed. They assume that the voters are stupid, with some basis, since they continue to get re-elected. So it’s a shock to them when the ones who really care and know what’s going on show up at the polls, as they did last week.
82 thoughts on “You Can Keep Your Plan And Your Doctor”
Comments are closed.
“They assume that the voters are stupid, ….”
Which is why they use gaslighting so much…it works on the lo-fos and kool-aid drinkers.
But as this election showed, it doesn’t work on a majority.
Notice that the stupid ones are the people they were trying to convince, in other words, Democrats. The rest of us knew it wasn’t going to work but the stupid ones bought the lies hook, line, and sinker. This isn’t surprising since you have to be pretty stupid to vote for Democrats in the first place.
And the ObamaCare supporters continue to lie to us every single day, often on this very blog. I guess they think that if they keep lying long enough, some of us will believe them.
Wow, a Democrat party official just called Democrats useful idiots.
What party official? Jon Gruber is an MIT professor, not a party official. As it happens he was the architect of Romney’s Republican health care reform plan in MA before consulting on Obamacare.
” Jon Gruber is an MIT professor, …”
And an architect of Obamacare….
“As it happens he was the architect of Romney’s Republican health care reform plan in MA before consulting on Obamacare”
You consider that a plus?
“During the 2008 election he was a consultant to the Clinton, Edwards and Obama presidential campaigns.”
Quite struggling, Jim. It only makes you sink faster.
Yes, Gruber has been a consultant to Democratic politicians and to Republican politicians. He wasn’t an official in either party. I’m still curious as to why Wodun referred to him as a party official.
Does that mean you agree with Gruber on his tactics?
“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” says the MIT economist who helped write Obamacare.”
“I’m still curious as to why Wodun referred to him as a party official.”
We’re still curious as to why you zero in on the trivialities of the post instead of the important content.
Actually we aren’t all that curious as we know the answer:
You have no argument; harping on trivialities is all you have left.
Does that mean you agree with Gruber on his tactics?
In the posted video Gruber describes the fact that a lack of transparency is a political advantage. He says he doesn’t like that fact, but given that it’s true, he’d rather have Obamacare on the books than not.
I’m not sure he’s right in all the particulars. I suspect Obamacare would have passed if the individual mandate penalty had been called a tax instead; in the end the legislative fight came down to party discipline, and the Dems had the numbers.
On the broader question, of course he’s right: a bill that puts things in less-transparent, more euphemistic language is going to have political advantages over one that hits you with the bare facts. That’s true whether it’s being proposed by Republicans or Democrats. Republicans aren’t going to call a plan to reduce Social Security spending the “Take Money From Grandma” act. They’ll call it something like the “Securing The Future For Our Seniors” act. The fact that a nicer name would help its political chances doesn’t tell you anything about whether the law in question is a good or bad idea.
We’re still curious as to why you zero in on the trivialities of the post instead of the important content.
The “important content” may have no easy correct answer, but we can all at least try to get simple facts right.
Jim, Gruber called you a useful idiot and here you are acting like one despite knowing that Obamacare was passed through fraud and deception.
“I’m not sure he’s right in all the particulars.”
Why is that? He literally wrote the bill and has been spilling the beans on the why’s and how’s it was passed the way it was.
“I suspect Obamacare would have passed if the individual mandate penalty had been called a tax instead;”
That was not the only deception used by Obama and the Democrats to pass the fraudulent bill.
“The fact that a nicer name would help its political chances ”
It wasn’t the name or euphemistic language, they intentionally lied about what the bill would do and what they wanted it to do.
“The “important content” may have no easy correct answer, but we can all at least try to get simple facts right.”
Gruber is a Democrat party official. You don’t get to write legislation for a Democrat controlled congress to pass a bill that only Democrats will vote on and only Democrats are allowed to have any input on if you are not a loyal Democrat activist. Romney worked with lots of Democrats and just because Gruber has a few associates that are not Democrats, doesn’t mean he isn’t one.
Are you going to claim Gruber was a GOP plant? Is he going to become an insurance industry saboteur in your narrative? How exactly are you going to claim that he isn’t a Democrat and was not working for the Democrats?
He literally wrote the bill and has been spilling the beans on the why’s and how’s it was passed the way it was.
He’s a health care economist, not a legislator or political strategist. His expertise was in designing a system that would work economically and financially, as he’d done in MA. He isn’t an expert on writing legislation, or knowing what would and wouldn’t pass Congress.
It wasn’t the name or euphemistic language
Yes, it was! In the video the example he gives is whether to call the individual mandate penalty a penalty or a tax. The name you give it has absolutely no effect on what it does, it’s all about making it sound better, just as Republicans do when they refer to cutting rich people’s taxes as “base-broadening, growth-promoting tax reform”.
Gruber is a Democrat party official.
No, he isn’t. He holds no title in the Democratic party (or the Democrat party, for that matter, which doesn’t even exist).
You don’t get to write legislation for a Democrat controlled congress to pass a bill that only Democrats will vote on and only Democrats are allowed to have any input on if you are not a loyal Democrat activist.
You do know how to stuff a lot of falsehood in one sentence. Gruber didn’t write the legislation, it was drafted by Democratic Senate staffers. The law was voted on by members of both parties. I don’t know whether Gruber is a loyal Democratic activist, but even if he is that isn’t the same thing as being a party official. I am a loyal Democratic activist — I’m a Democrat who sometimes volunteers to help Democrats get elected. But I’m not a Democratic party official — I hold no office or title. It would be 100% false to call me a Democratic party official, and it’s 100% false to call Gruber one.
How exactly are you going to claim that he isn’t a Democrat and was not working for the Democrats?
I never said that he wasn’t a Democrat, or that he didn’t work for Democrats. Do you honestly believe that every single Democrat in the country is a party official?
“He’s a health care economist, not a legislator or political strategist. ”
So? That doesn’t mean that he didn’t help write the bill or formulate Obamacare strategy. He was a key figure in the process.
“He isn’t an expert on writing legislation, or knowing what would and wouldn’t pass Congress.”
His own statements paint a different picture.
“Yes, it was! In the video the example he gives is whether to call the individual mandate penalty a penalty or a tax.”
Go back and listen to what he said. Gruber said that they could not be honest about what Obamacare does. Not just that it is a tax and not a penalty but that as a tax, it uses premiums to subsidize the system. Your premiums are also a tax. They are not a payment for goods. They are a monthly tax. At the bottom, it forces people to pay into the system and not get anything back in order to subsidize Democrat constituencies. At the top, it penalizes people who’s insurance is deemed to be too good. It intentionally hides the funding mechanisms of how the bill works, which is exactly what Gruber said and you have previously said was a good thing to do.
This lowers the quality of health care. It is like saying that anyone with a TV over 12 inches and greater than 480p will be taxed. How many 42 inch TVs will be manufactured? Far less than they would otherwise. What company is going to produce TVs with higher quality pictures? Very few if any. It would kill innovation in TV technology, just like Obamacare is going to stifle innovation in the health care industry.
“I don’t know whether Gruber is a loyal Democratic activist, but even if he is that isn’t the same thing as being a party official.”
IMO, being an activist for the party does make you a party official especially when you are writing legislation and crafting strategy. Saying that Gruber isn’t a party official is like saying Carl Rove isn’t a party official.
“I hold no office or title.”
That hardly matters. You are a party official. You literally work for the party. You are just low level. It is 100% false to claim you are not a party official.
“Do you honestly believe that every single Democrat in the country is a party official?’
No, but if you are working for the party, you are a party official. This is especially true if you are helping to craft policy and strategy at the national level.
Not just that it is a tax and not a penalty but that as a tax, it uses premiums to subsidize the system.
Suppose I asked you whether you wanted to sign up for a system that takes money from younger and healthier people, and uses it to pay for the medical care of older and sicker people, even when those older and sicker people are well off. That doesn’t sound very appealing, does it? But it’s an accurate description of employer-based health insurance and Medicare, the two most popular and beloved forms of health coverage in the U.S. Gruber’s point is that no one talks about health insurance in that way, because it sounds terrible.
You are a party official. You literally work for the party. You are just low level. It is 100% false to claim you are not a party official.
You are saying that every person who ever volunteered for a campaign — millions of Americans, on both sides of the aisle — is a party official. That is simply ridiculous. The dictionary definition of “official” is “a person holding public office or having official duties, especially as a representative of an organization or government department.” Gruber has no official duties to the Democratic party, and is not a representative of the Democratic party. I have no official duties, nor am I a party representative. You were simply incorrect in broadening the definition of “party official” to include anyone who’d ever done anything to help the Democratic party or one of its candidates. Indeed, by your definition Gruber is also a Republican party official, since he was heavily involved in helping Romney design his health care law.
Wow, a Democrat party official just called Democrats useful idiots.
Indeed, Wodun. Here is a list of quotes from the Democrats in praise of Gruber in 2009. Some of my favorites:
“The Congressional Budget Office and Professor Gruber are both credible and unbiased sources that are not bought and sold by the insurance industry.” – Max Baucus
“MIT Economics professor Jon Gruber recently conducted analyses based on the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office model to show that the bill will deliver savings for people purchasing health care in the nongroup insurance market, ranging from several hundred dollars for the youngest consumers to over $8500 for families.” – Whitehouse.gov
“I’ll take the CBO over some guy who “presents personal finance-related workshops and speeches at companies” any day. The CBO is the fairest fiscal arbiter available, and the fact that the CBO says the Affordable Care Act will reduce the deficit clearly drives the right crazy. And when the facts don’t match the right’s ideology, out go the facts.” – Jim
“So now you are saying that the CBO is lying — that they are saying things they know to be untrue? Do show the evidence that supports such a conclusion.” – Jim again…
I’m reminded of a recent complaint about the growing distrust in expert testimony, in this essay, “The Death of Expertise”. Here, we see why the public might grow disillusioned with experts.
An economics expert publicly gloats that public policy was achieved via the ignorance of the public. He also is notable for having undisclosed conflicts of interest with the Obama administration (being paid to consult on Obamacare while simultaneously presenting himself as an independent outsider advocating for Obamacare).
Jim circa 2018: “What do you mean Obama was a Democrat, he wasn’t a Democrat and he wasn’t even the one who came up with Obamacare. Republicans did that and Obama was a fascist totalitarian war monger just like all of the other Republicans.”
“An ObamaCare architect freely admits they had to lie to the voters to get the law passed.”
…and?
Look, let’s just take my pedantic, evasive tangent as a given, because that’s what I always do when Rand raising damning and uncomfortable facts about my fellow travelers. Oh sure, sometimes I just hide until it blows over, and then I come back and mutter something about how work kept me so busy, but where’s the fun in that? Sure, a troll’s gotta make a living, but a troll’s gotta troll. Speaking of which — hey, what’s that, over there?
Oh, it was nothing, just like it always is. See? Gotcha. LOL! I crack me up. Anywho, no, it doesn’t matter that this absolute nobody lied, what matters is that he worked on Romneycare, and you ignorant, inbred rightwing nutjobs must support Romneycare because the GOP always circles the wagons, just like the Democrats. And no, that’s not just projection, so stop saying that.
And don’t even start up with how this absolutely destroys my canned talking point about how the CBO is the gold standard. GIGO? Shut up! It’s the gold standard. I decree it. I also don’t want to hear another peep about how I’m living in another universe because I still refuse to call the Obamacare penalty a tax. It is not a tax! A guy in a funny robe who calls himself the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court declares it a tax? So what? Who does he think he is, anyway? He’s not even a wise, enlightened, pragmatic progressive like me. My decree is truth. And stop bringing up how everyone else in the America, including all the major newspapers also call it a tax now. It doesn’t matter! I decree it! Do you hear me? I decree it, so shut up!
Just a few months ago, a liberal science-fiction writer blogged that Republican politicians had stopped mentioning Obamacare. And that was a sure sign it was working.
I’d give the link but don’t want to give the guy the embarrassment he fully deserves.
The writer has a good point: if Obamacare wasn’t working it would have come up a lot more in the 2014 campaigns. Instead you had things like Mitch McConnell promising voters that repealing Obamacare wouldn’t end the very popular expansion of Medicaid in Kentucky (which, of course, it would). A Kaiser study out today shows average premiums dropping in major markets next year. The premium for my plan is going to be lower in 2015 than 2014, the first time I’ve seen that happen since I started buying my own health coverage in 2001.
Yes Jim, it is working so well that Democrats like Mark Udall dared never to speak it’s name during the campaign. Of all the the reasons he gave for voting for him, protecting Obamacare wasn’t one of them. In fact, none of the people in CO running for national office offered Obamacare as a reason to elect them. Perhaps all of those pols are just plain stupid and don’t know nearly as much about the popularity of Obamacare as you and the article author do, but my guess is not.
I didn’t say Obamacare was popular — it isn’t. But it isn’t the train wreck that was predicted, so Republicans didn’t spend much of their ad budgets running against it.
It isn’t the train wreck that was predicted?
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/10/22/aca-consolidation-push-sends-costs-skyrocketing/
Obamacare is clearly a trainwreck in the matter of unemployment.
The singularity is not so near that we couldn’t have more jobs if Obamacare wasn’t part of the equation.
Obamacare is clearly a trainwreck in the matter of unemployment.
In the four years since Obamacare passed we’ve had falling unemployment and steady job gains. That’s anything but a train wreck.
“I didn’t say Obamacare was popular — it isn’t.”
Finally, you say that after years of claiming that it is popular.
Finally, you say that after years of claiming that it is popular.
I challenge you to find one instance of me claiming that Obamacare is popular.
The Dems ran from Obamacare in the same way they ran from Obama – as fast as their little feeties could take them.
And of course you are gaslighting us when it comes to what Conservative candidates said…it was talked about all the time:
Joni Ernst:
Today’s report that Obamacare is leading to increased premiums in Iowa is bad news for the thousands of Iowans who will now have higher health care costs – some will see out-of-pocket costs rise by as much as 19 percent. Congressman Bruce Braley once said he read the entire Obamacare law and wouldn’t change a single thing about it, and promised that Iowans who liked their coverage could keep it. Congressman Braley broke his promise, and now thousands of Iowans are paying for it. This partisan bill was never the solution and I will fight to repeal and replace Obamacare with patient-centered health care reforms that lower costs, increase choice, and actually improve care.”
(CNSNews.com) – Every new GOP senator who won in last night’s election campaigned on repealing Obamacare.
Senators Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), David Perdue (R-Ga.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) all ran on a platform of repealing Obamacare.
Gardner touted patient-centered care and a full repeal and replacement of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA), otherwise known as Obamacare.
Or this:
“In a recent speech at Northwestern University, President Obama claimed that fewer Republicans are running against Obamacare because “while good, affordable health care might seem to be a fanged threat to freedom on Fox News, it turns out it’s working pretty well in the real world.” ”
That’s the real world you fail to inhabit Jim….you see only what you want to see…it continues:
“Check out the websites of GOP candidates in key Senate races. Tom Cotton’s currently features an attack on Obamacare as its second lead item (just below a fundraiser with Mike Huckabee). Dan Sullivan’s features a piece called “Promoting Affordable Healthcare while Fighting ObamaCare.” Bill Cassidy’s includes a tweet about how Obamacare is “forcing companies to cut jobs.”
If you think Arkansas, Alaska, and Louisiana are too conservative to be representative, then look at two of our most centrist states, as measured by the last two presidential elections. In North Carolina, the donation page of Thom Tillis’ website lists repeal of Obamacare as the first item that a donation will help him achieve. And the main page features an article called “Hagan’s ObamaCare Set To Cause Premiums To Surge In N.C.” “Hagan’s Obamcare” — it doesn’t sound like Tillis is backing off on the issue.
In Virginia, meanwhile, Ed Gilespie’s “agenda” page lists “replacing Obamacare” as the first item. And a Gillespie ad that aired recently in the Northern Virginia market mentioned his opposition to Obamacare twice.
Similarly, in New Hampshire, Scott Brown (who as a Senator voted against Obamacare) hasn’t changed his mind. On his issues page, he states:
Obamacare Isn’t Working. The people of New Hampshire take pride in individual liberty and freedom. Obamacare demolishes both.
No ambiguity there.
Even in liberal Michigan, the Republican candidate, Terri Lynn Land, is attacking Obamacare. In her “Michigan First” plan, , she argues that Americans “needlessly suffer” due to Obamacare. She also points out that “nearly every single promise made about ObamaCare in 2009 has been broken.” ”
In short Jim you, once again, do not know wha tyou are talking about.
Obamacare Losing Power as Campaign Weapon in Ad Battles
Yes, all the GOP candidates hate Obamacare, said so on their websites and in interviews and debates. But when it came to allocating scarce campaign ad money, they moved away from Obamacare over the course of the campaign, and onto ISIS, Ebola, the border, etc.
Did you just read the first paragraph? Also, Bloomberg is not the best source of objective news.
There is so much wrong with your argument. First, the article was three months before the election. Can you tell us how much was spent in September and October? Second, it wasn’t that Obamacare was the only factor that they needed to harp on. They also realized that they needed to focus on the economy. (Funny that, why would that work if the economy was doing so well?) They wanted to tie the economy in with Obamacare.
You can throw in quotes that disagree with me, but those will be irrelevant because you used the link to prove that the republicans didn’t put their money where their mouths were. You didn’t prove a thing.
First, you might want to check the date on that wishful thinking disguised as journalism. The big push in the campaign came in September and October, not August.
Second, here in CO the fact that Udall had said he would vote for Obamacare again was widely used in ads against him. It was a way of proving Udall was “too extreme for Colorado”. So just because some joker at Bloomberg didn’t see it being used, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t being used. It was used, and it was quite effective. Just ask Senator-Elect Cory Gardner.
” But when it came to allocating scarce campaign ad money, they moved away from Obamacare over the course of the campaign, and onto ISIS, Ebola, the border, etc.”
Please Jim, you’re just digging yourself ever deeper. You look imbecilic here.
1) You keep making wild statements you have zero way of proving. Prove to us how they allocated their “scarce” campaign money.
You can’t.
2) What was the GOP doing 100% of the time? Capitalizing on the statement by Obama that all his policies were being judged by this election. The GOP nationalized the election. The Dems franticallytried to make it local.
Jim, please, you’re just looking really desparate now. NO ONE is accepting your gaslighting…we all know better.
Prove to us how they allocated their “scarce” campaign money.
You can’t.
Sure you can — count the TV ads.
The GOP nationalized the election.
Yes, they did, but Obamacare wasn’t their primary argument.
>Sure you can — count the TV ads.
Jim please give 5 seconds thought before you answer:
1) Counting TV ads do not include what a candidate says on the stump
2) You have not counted TV ads run by republican candidates across the nation. You have no idea what ads Tom Cotton or Joni Ernst ran. You are taking out of total ignorance.
3) I reject your stupid notion that a statement on a candidate’s web page does not count as a statement of what they are running on. That’s just nuts.
>>The GOP nationalized the election.
>Yes, they did, but Obamacare wasn’t their primary argument.
Your ignorance and grasping are showing again.
Jim forgets that the ads he sees on his own TV vary greatly from ads shown in other states.
Counting TV ads do not include what a candidate says on the stump
We’re talking about tracking spending. TV ads cost money, stump speeches don’t.
You have not counted TV ads run by republican candidates across the nation.
I didn’t say I had. You said it was impossible to tell which messages campaigns spent money on. I pointed out that it was possible, by counting ads.
I reject your stupid notion that a statement on a candidate’s web page does not count as a statement of what they are running on.
They can say all they want on their web page, but ads are how you know where they’re putting their limited money.
TV ads cost money, stump speeches don’t.
Most TV ads are mudslinging about the other candidate. The argument here are the issues the candidates consider their platform. Platforms are almost never in TV ads, but can be found on the website or other publications from the candidate.
As others noted, Jim’s just grasping at straws.
“We’re talking about tracking spending. TV ads cost money, stump speeches don’t.”
Silly man..stump speeches cost money too.
Even more importantly..you lie.
Here is what you said – a quote from you:
“The writer has a good point: if Obamacare wasn’t working it would have come up a lot more in the 2014 campaigns.”
You said nothing about money. NOTHING! Do you understand that we are on to your gaslighting? This is gaslighting..trying to make us think something different than what we actually see.
You said it would have come up a lot more in *CAMPAIGNS*. My position still holds – you have no idea whether or not that’s true.
“A Kaiser study out today shows average premiums dropping in major markets next year.”
Lets wait and see what they actually are since Obama ordered the industry not to release their prices yet. Also, lets take note that Obama ordered the industry to do this. Did the ACA give the President the power to dictate insurance companies around? And if Obama can dictate what insurance companies can do, what is to stop him from ordering them to lower prices for different groups of people just like Hugo Chavez would dictate what the price of toilet paper was? Price controls don’t work, even with the deceptive means of channeling funds to and from the insurance industry to hide what is going on from the public.
This is part of the deception that Gruber has spoken about. Useful idiots buy into the deception because they don’t know or care to look behind the curtain.
” The premium for my plan is going to be lower in 2015 than 2014″
Because other people are subsidizing you by being forced to pay into the system and not getting any benefits back. People with bronze plans pay thousands in and get nothing in return until they hit their out of pocket cap. It is a scam.
Also, Obamacare was an issue during the campaign. That Democrats didn’t campaign on it doesn’t mean that others didn’t or that it wasn’t a concern for voters.
Lets wait and see what they actually are since Obama ordered the industry not to release their prices yet.
I do wonder where you get these trivially falsified “facts”. You can go to http://healthcare.gov and compare plan prices today.
Because other people are subsidizing you by being forced to pay into the system and not getting any benefits back. People with bronze plans pay thousands in and get nothing in return until they hit their out of pocket cap.
I have a bronze plan. Why is my plan cheaper this year than it was last year, while including more hospitals in its network? Could it be that Obamacare is causing insurance companies to compete harder for customers?
“Could it be that Obamacare is causing insurance companies to compete harder for customers?”
It isn’t competition when everyone has to sign up or pay a tax.
“You can go to http://healthcare.gov and compare plan prices today.”
Now that the election is over and open enrollment has started. But it turns out that when I type in my zip code the site breaks.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/07/20/al-franken-may-have-won-his-senate-seat-through-voter-fraud
Huh? I thought they said that voter fraud is a myth.
That’s a story from 2010. In the end about 100 people were found guilty of vote fraud in that election (out of 3 million votes), not enough to affect the outcome of even the closest Senate race in recent history. The voters in question were felons who are allowed to vote in MN, but hadn’t filed the required forms.
Voter fraud isn’t a myth. Large scale, organized voter fraud on a scale that routinely affects Congressional or statewide election outcomes is a myth.
“Large scale, organized voter fraud on a scale that routinely affects Congressional or statewide election outcomes is a myth.”
BS. In Washington, Democrats showed up with boxes of ballots on the third recount. They claimed they forgot the boxes in their trunk. But in reality, they knew who hadn’t voted yet and went out and got just enough ballots to put their candidate for governor over the top. Even with that, the margin of victory was less than the illegal votes they actually discovered.
We saw video after video of Democrat party officials encouraging voter fraud this cycle and in past cycles there are numerous examples of Democrat party officials engaging in voter fraud.
Why should we believe Democrat claim that they act with integrity when so often they prove the exact opposite? Here you are on a thread about Democrats intentionally writing a bill so that it would be impossible for the public to know what it would do and passing it through fraud and you want us to think Democrats have ethics in the voting booth?
But in reality, they knew who hadn’t voted yet and went out and got just enough ballots to put their candidate for governor over the top.
All sorts of things happen in your “reality”. But just to be clear: what you’re imagining isn’t voter fraud, it’s fraud on the part of election officials.
Here you are on a thread about Democrats intentionally writing a bill so that it would be impossible for the public to know what it would do
The Ryan budget — passed by the GOP how many times — was, if anything, less transparent. Does that mean that Republicans are committing rampant election fraud?
“The Ryan budget…mean that Republicans are committing rampant election fraud?”
What? How do you connect the two?
I am saying that the Democrat party have shown themselves to be unethical when it comes to voter fraud, they encourage it. It is on tape. They also lied about Obamacare. That is also on tape. Basically, you cant trust a Democrat in elected office, they don’t operate in good faith.
And no, just because you didn’t like Ryan’s budget doesn’t mean he is pro-voter fraud.
Why did you ignore the remark about fraud in Washington State?
How do you connect the two?
You say that the fact that Democrats passed a bill in a less-than-transparent way proves that they’re liable to commit massive election fraud. I point out that the Ryan budget was if anything even less transparent (you’d hardly know from Ryan’s presentations how it slashes spending on the poor), and so by your logic that means that the GOP must also be liable to commit massive election fraud.
It’s funny that you literally can not even recognize your own ridiculous logic when it’s pointed back at you.
Why did you ignore the remark about fraud in Washington State?
It sounds too fantastic to be credible, and wasn’t backed by any link or evidence.
In the four years since Obamacare passed we’ve had falling unemployment and steady job gains. That’s anything but a train wreck.
That’s just funny.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/11/nonfarm-payrolls-214k-led-by-52000.html#Bb8AwFpFYvCELRQp.99
While the employer mandate has yet to be implemented, Obamcare has had some effects on employment. There are more part time workers and more jobs being outsourced to contractors. Jim might not know any hourly workers but trust me, they are being effected. Companies have been working for the last few years on how to reduce the number of employees and how many hours those employees work. When Obamacare is actually implemented, companies will be very strict about how many hours their part timers work.
There are more part time workers
No, that is a myth.
Well, it’s the Atlantic.
Huh: http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/commentaries/Full-Time-vs-Part-Time-Employment.php
It’s the Atlantic citing official statistics.
Ratio of Part-Time Employed Remains Substantially Higher Than the Pre-Recession Level
Yes, and if you look at the graph you see it’s been dropping steadily since 2010, when Obamacare passed and supposedly started forcing more people into part-time work. Your source completely undermines your argument.
And here’s another article:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/post-recession-legacy-elevated-level-of-part-time-employment-1415808672
Somehow, only the links you give me are correct. Funny that.
Somehow, only the links you give me are correct. Funny that.
Do you read the articles you link to, or what I write about them? I agreed with your last link, which completely undermines the point you were using it to make.
I can’t read this link, as it’s behind a paywall.
U-6 is much higher at 11.5%
Yes, and it was over 17% when Obamacare was passed. That’s a train wreck?
Yes it is. It isn’t in bizarro world.
Having the U-6 unemployment measure fall by 32% in four years is a train wreck? We could use more train wrecks like that.
If you stopped crowing about our successful economy, I wouldn’t throw numbers your way that disprove it.
A: The patient is completely healed!
B: Um, he’s still bleeding.
A: But he isn’t bleeding as much as before! A success!
I’m not crowing, I’m saying it’s dishonest to treat substantial improvement as a train wreck.
“I’m saying it’s dishonest to treat substantial improvement as a train wreck.”
But since there is ZERO substantial improvement, taken a s a system, it is a train wreck.
…a train wreck that is ruining lives if not outright ending them. And the train wrecks are escalating.
But since there is ZERO substantial improvement, taken a s a system, it is a train wreck.
Huh? Going from 17% U-6 unemployment to 11.5% is substantial improvement. Do you really want to argue that the economy “taken as a system” is train-wreck-level worse today than it was when Obamacare was passed?
“Huh? Going from 17% U-6 unemployment to 11.5% is substantial improvement. Do you really want to argue that the economy “taken as a system” is train-wreck-level worse today than it was when Obamacare was passed?”
Do the words “taken as a system” mean anything AT ALL to you?
Jim, it would be much easier to discuss things with you if you were honest about your intentions.
How am I not being honest about my intentions?
The Democrats and crypto-marxists/socialists (I repeat myself) lied to us about keeping our doctors (Note: I just lost my doctor this week)
…they lied to us about being able to keep our health plan….(we’ll see about my health plan now that the election is over….)
…they lied to us about how their monstrosity would bend the cost curve down…..
…they lied to us about how it would save us all $2500……
and Conservatives denounced these lies the day they were uttered and every time they were uttered. We knew it was unicorns and pixie dust and we told you so. We also told you it will not result in more insured and we are seeing that now.
Actual results proved we were completely right.
Gruber chiseled those facts in stone…..
The only people still trying to defend Obamacare are the head burying, kool-aid drinking, utterly non-thinking rump swaps of the Left.
You can see that in this and other blogs. They are not worth the time of day to refute their miserably pathetic arguments.
It’s okay if you lose your doctor, just as long as they keep their gravity train.
Conservatives denounced these lies the day they were uttered and every time they were uttered. We knew it was unicorns and pixie dust and we told you so.
If those “lies” were so thoroughly debunked the day they were uttered, what damage did they do?
We also told you it will not result in more insured and we are seeing that now.
What evidence are you referring to? Every survey says that there are more insured.
…and the Democrats and crypto-marxists/socialists (I repeat myself) CONTINUE to lie about it:
Nancy Pelosi says she doesn’t know who Jonathan Gruber is. She touted his work in 2009.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that, not only did Jonathan Gruber not play a significant role in drafting Obamacare, but that she doesn’t even “know who he is.”
Pelosi herself has also mentioned Gruber and his work — back in November 2009, at the height of the Obamacare debate.
Here’s the transcript, via Nexis:
Q: As you know, the Republicans released their health- care bill this week. And I wanted to get your comment on the bill, and specifically on the CBO analysis that it would cost significantly less than the Democratic plan and that it would lower premiums.
PELOSI: Let me just say this. Anything you need to know about the difference between the Democratic bill and the Republican bill is that the Republicans do not end the health insurance companies’ discrimination against people with preexisting conditions. They let that stand. That’s scandalous, the fact that it exists. I don’t understand why they have not heard the American people, who have said preexisting conditions should not be a source of discrimination.
And secondly, the Republican plan ensures about 3 million more people than now, and ours does 36 million people. So that’s a very big difference in that.
We’re not finished getting all of our reports back from CBO, but we’ll have a side by side to compare. But our bill brings down rates. I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange. And our bill takes down those costs, even some now, and much less preventing the upward spiral.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/13/nancy-pelosi-says-she-doesnt-know-who-jonathan-gruber-is-she-touted-his-work-in-2009/
I’m guessing that Pelosi, and most other politicians, do not recall every expert they cited five years ago.
Also as predicted:
” CBS News summarizes several of the unhappy developments consumers will encounter in the coming days and weeks:
With the Affordable Care Act to start enrollment for its second year on Nov. 15, some unpleasant surprises may be in store for some. That’s because a number of low-priced Obamacare plans will raise their rates in 2015, making those options less affordable. On top of that, penalties for failing to secure a health-insurance plan will rise steeply next year, which could take a big bite out of some families’ pocketbooks. “The penalty is meant to incentivize people to get coverage,” said senior analyst Laura Adams of InsuranceQuotes.com. “This year, I think a lot of people are going to be in for a shock.” In 2014, Obamacare’s first year, individuals are facing a penalty of $95 per person, or 1 percent of their income, depending on which is higher. If an American failed to get coverage this year, that penalty will be taken out of their tax refund in early 2015, Adams noted. While that might be painful to some uninsured Americans who are counting on their tax refunds in early 2015, the penalty for going uninsured next year is even harsher. The financial penalty for skipping out on health coverage will more than triple to $325 per person in 2015, or 2 percent of income, depending on whichever is higher. Children will be fined at half the adult rate, or $162.50 for those under 18 years old.”
More from Gruber:
“What the American public cares about is costs. And that’s why even though the bill that they made is 90% health insurance coverage and 10% about cost control, all you ever hear people talk about is cost control. How it’s going to lower the cost of health care, that’s all they talk about. Why? Because that’s what people want to hear about because a majority of American care about health care costs.” You can watch the speech on the C-SPAN website here Gruber said the measures in the bill that attempt to lower costs constitute a “spaghetti approach” — throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks. And while preferable to the status quo, Gruber said he could offer no guarantee that any of the measures would work.”
Actually we can guarantee it won’t work. It hasn’t worked and will continue to get much worse.
Was it you, Gregg, or one of the other commenters, who just recently was insisting that Obama had delayed the individual mandate and its penalties (i.e. that he’d shut down the government rather than delay the individual mandate when the GOP wanted to do that, and then had done it himself)? Can we now agree that the individual has not been delayed, and that penalties for those who went without coverage in 2014 will start hitting come April 15?
It hasn’t worked
Health care cost inflation is lower than it’s been in decades. Something is working.
That was me. We’ll see if I get hit this January. You see, I don’t have health insurance.
Think of me when you see the doctor.
(i.e. that he’d shut down the government rather than delay the individual mandate when the GOP wanted to do that, and then had done it himself)?
And I never said that. I just said they weren’t planning on penalizing people.
Suppose I asked you whether you wanted to sign up for a system that takes money from younger and healthier people, and uses it to pay for the medical care of older and sicker people, even when those older and sicker people are well off. That doesn’t sound very appealing, does it? But it’s an accurate description of employer-based health insurance and Medicare, the two most popular and beloved forms of health coverage in the U.S. Gruber’s point is that no one talks about health insurance in that way, because it sounds terrible.
So beloved and popular? That’s like saying we loved the model T in black. Or that I Love Lucy got such high ratings. You are against choice and independence. I can smell your arrogance across the country.
The end, for you, justifies the means. Sure, we have to lie because the people Simply Do Not Understand. Most dictators crowed about their love for their people. They just knew better and that’s why the people should not be able to vote.
And the Obamacare hits just keep on coming. In this particular case, a concept that was launched in the 1940’s to…wait for it…bring health care to all is being destroyed by the monstrosity that purports to bring health care to all::
Rural hospitals serve many of society’s most vulnerable.
“They set the whole rural system up for failure,” says Jimmy Lewis, CEO of Hometown Health, an association representing rural hospitals in Georgia and Alabama, believed to be the next state facing mass closures. “Through entitlements and a mandate to provide service without regard to condition, they got us to (the highest reimbursements), and now they’re pulling the rug out from under us.”
“The Affordable Care Act was designed to improve access to health care for all Americans and will give them another chance at getting health insurance during open enrollment starting this Saturday. But critics say the ACA is also accelerating the demise of rural outposts that cater to many of society’s most vulnerable. These hospitals treat some of the sickest and poorest patients — those least aware of how to stay healthy. Hospital officials contend that the law’s penalties for having to re-admit patients soon after they’re released are impossible to avoid and create a crushing burden.
“The stand-alone, community hospital is going the way of the dinosaur,” says Angela Mattie, chairwoman of the health care management and organizational leadership department at Connecticut’s Quinnipiac University, known for its public opinion surveys on issues including public health.
The closings threaten to decimate a network of rural hospitals the federal government first established beginning in the late 1940s to ensure that no one would be without health care. It was a theme that resonated during the push for the new health law. But rural hospital officials and others say that federal regulators — along with state governments — are now starving the hospitals they created with policies and reimbursement rates that make it nearly impossible for them to stay afloat.”
I’ll bet you NONE of those geniuses like Gruber who crafted this monstrosity even knew those hospitals existed let alone why they were ther.
Yet another sterling example of unintended consequences of massive laws emanating out of the Washington bubble.
And I will repeat the quote:
“They set the whole rural system up for failure,”
For the Fantasists and shark jumpers among the Lib/Socialist/marxists…another chance to view reality and put the kool-aid down:
:Some Democrats, and some outside observers, have tried to convince themselves that Obamacare did not play a central role in the 2014 campaign. The Washington Post reported this week that the GOP “played down its zeal to repeal” Obamacare during the midterms.
That would come as a surprise to the newly elected Republican senators — every one of them — who campaigned on a pledge to repeal Obamacare. It would come as a surprise to the Republican ad makers, both for campaigns and outside groups, who made commercial after commercial attacking Obamacare. And it would also come as a surprise to House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader-elect Mitch McConnell, who in the second paragraph of their joint post-election article in the Wall Street Journal said the voters’ decision “means renewing our commitment to repeal Obamacare.”
AND!…… the hits just keep on coming:
“But it’s risky to just let the computer automatically sign you up for the same plan you had this year. For technical reasons, premiums and subsidies for the “same” plan can change drastically, so your coverage could suddenly cost you a lot more.
The plan can also change its network of providers: You need to check if your current doctors and hospitals will still be covered.
Actually, your premium is probably going up anyway. Reports have been leaking for months that consumers can generally expect an average rate hike of 8.4 percent in the most popular plans, with double-digit increases in some states.”
Ahhhh a rate hike! for what? Why to adjust for the failure of a system that doesn’t take human nature into account and a system that was designed to fail.
But….but…Obamacare will save me $2500!
To continue:
“And your subsidies could go poof.
….. the administration was supposed to mail notices to some 7.1 million Americans by Nov. 1, notifying them that they may be eligible for subsidies next year. Fewer than a million notices went out on time.
And testing still isn’t finished for parts of the small-business exchange program, known as SHOP — a program that was supposed to be ready last year, but never got off the ground.
The administration thinks the consumer part of the SHOP system will be fully operational by Saturday. But other parts, such as the ability to relay premium information back to employers, need up to a month more testing.”
Oh and here is a fact for the kool-aid slurping, shark-jumping robots:
“Roughly 7.1 million Americans bought insurance though the exchanges last year. Many had been uninsured, but even more had simply been forced to change plans, because their previous insurance didn’t meet all ObamaCare’s requirements.”
…EVEN MORE……
Continuing:
“The administration has lowered its estimates for how many new people will sign up this year from 6 million to just 2 million to 3 million. That’s bad news for the promised universal coverage, but it might take some of the pressure off the system.
Unfortunately, more folks will have to change plans this year. Some people managed to lock in noncompliant plans early enough last year to avoid cancelation, but the reprieve was temporary: Cancelation notices are on their way.
In the last couple of months, as many as 250,000 people in Virginia got notice that their plans will be canceled, plus 30,000 in New Mexico, 14,000 in Kentucky and more than 6,000 in Colorado, among others.”
And last but certainly not least:
“Indeed, the administration pushed back this year’s open enrollment until after the election to spare congressional Democrats the blowback if things fell apart again this time.
That plan didn’t work too well.”
No it didn’t, did it?
http://nypost.com/2014/11/13/this-years-glitch-how-obamacare-will-screw-you-now/
What we’ve been saying all along:
Medicaid expansion accounts for the vast majority of new health insurance enrollment under Obamacare, a new report by the conservative Heritage Foundation has concluded.
The think tank crunched numbers derived from insurer regulatory filings and other sources and determined that, out of the 8.5 million people who gained health insurance coverage in the first half of this year, Medicaid expansion for working-age adults comprised 71 percent of them.
“The inescapable conclusion is that, at least when it comes to covering the uninsured, Obamacare so far is mainly a simple expansion of Medicaid,” Heritage Foundation senior research fellow Edmund Haislmaier and health economist Drew Gonshorowski wrote in the report.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2555112
Medicaid, you will recall, requires no payments from the insured.
Here is what you said – a quote from you:
Here we have the quintessential Jim…a combination of Grubering and gaslighting:
Jim seems to think that the GOP didn’ t run against Obamacare. He first said this:
“The writer has a good point: if Obamacare wasn’t working it would have come up a lot more in the 2014 campaigns.”
Then when it was pointed out he couldn’t possibly know that, since, for example, he didn’ t hear stump speeches and web pages pointed to, Jim knew he was in serious trouble. So he gaslights:
“We’re talking about tracking spending. TV ads cost money, stump speeches don’t.”
You said nothing about money. NOTHING! in your initial quote. Do you understand that we are on to your gaslighting? This is gaslighting..trying to make us think something different than what we actually see.
You said it would have come up a lot more in *CAMPAIGNS*. My position still holds – you have no idea whether or not that’s true.
Worse, when trapped you try to pretend you were arguing something else.
Massive Fail.