“I would enact a bold energy policy because I think that we could save so much money, engineer such a resurgence in our economy and solve climate change all at one time. And it would improve our national security posture. So you get a three-fer. It helps our environment, our economy and our national security and it would free up resources over time to deal with what I think is the most important domestic issue which is health care, and I think it would help us strategically on the international stage.”Health care is in there, but only after the economy booms, freeing up money over time to make it workable to deal with health care.
Were we warned that leading from behind his party's majority in Congress, he would push through a massive health-care reform — without persuading the majority of Americans, without gaining support from the minority party, without prior economic recovery, and while plummeting hopelessly and incomprehensibly deeply into debt?
Was he stumped by that Loaf-and-Ladle question, or did he pause to carefully frame a bizarre lie? Notice that he claims his energy policy will be a "three-fer" and health care isn't one of the 3 things. The 3 things are a resurgent economy, the solution to climate change, and stronger national security. Health care is tossed in as an afterthought, and he's calling it an "important issue," not saying how he will solve it, only implying that money needs to be amassed before the issue can be approached.
As an independent who voted for Obama in 2008, looking back at that crafty answer, I feel defrauded. Maybe back then those thoughtful, elaborate answers inflated us with hope, but pulling that one apart this morning, I feel anger and disgust. What a horrible squandering of 2 terms of presidency!
"Nobody's madder than me," Obama says now. That can't be true.
Posts
163 comments:
Racist!
Obama saying what a voter wants to hear. As a campaigner, pretty good.
The follow-through is what lacks, demonstrably.
"I feel defrauded."
Millions fooled themselves. What a warm fuzzy feeling they got listening to a clean articulate black man who could be president: "Mmm, I feel so enlightened and progressive."
Obama's campaign bullshit was not the problem.
His "bold energy policy" would cripple the economy. And without a functioning economy, how do you pay for stuff like healthcare?
I wish I could trust that our President understands that.
let me guess; you also believed that great pitchman Billy Mays or better still Ron Popeil and his instant hair growth product.
Empty words from a buffoon incapable of doing his job. The Peter principle writ large.
Obama reminds me of a leader of suicide cult who now can't keep his plan secret.
Hopefully the inevitable will give Americans a decent interval before it's too late to take off the track shoes and the black pajamas when they realized they won't be beamed up by aliens.
Obama's ignorance on energy production is at least as great as his ignorance on health insurance.
I'm still waiting for credible evidence of Obama's alleged intelligence.
Obama's three-fer is a contradiction in terms, not to mention hubristic nonsense.
Economies love cheap energy. What Obama was promising to do was to rebuild the economy by pursuing an expensive energy policy. If a bold energy policy was cheap, we would have already been doing it.
Remember green jobs? Jobs are expensive! Every dollar that goes into a job makes the end product cost more. When the end product is energy, every other sector of the economy pays up.
What Obama said is an astounding piece of nonsense. He could just as easily promised to save money, save the economy and solve climate change all at once with health care reform. Really, just replace the word between "bold" and "policy" with anything you want:
"I would enact a bold ___________ policy because x, y, and z. You get a three-fer."
A three-fer of nonsense.
" Ron Popeil and his instant hair growth product." Well, that's a bit unfair and inaccurate. As I recall it was spray on hair simulator. I don't recall anything about growing hair.
Unlike the White house boob who said that he could lead, could do the job and has been shown to be woefully incompetent, repeatedly.
some of us saw through him early. And were vilified as racists for it.
Whenever a guy hears somebody talking up a line for soap opera women, the guy knows he's listening to a moron.
Guys find out 5 years sooner than women, in the case of politicians.
The nonpartisan John and Ken pronounced an Obama rally an estrogen flood, way back when.
Why was this not obvious to everybody?
Contribution to feminism : learn to recognize your gender's tendency to foolishness.
If you think "He means well," you're probably wrong. It's gender based. Watch out.
Let's have some responsibility if women want to be taken for adults.
Prof. Althouse said As an independent who voted for Obama in 2008, looking back at that crafty answer, I feel defrauded.
Professor, I marvel at, admire, and learn from (these present days) your critical and incisive thinking on e.g. Obama's recent AMA "infomercial".
All the more astonishing then that you did not, as so many did, listen to Obama's 2007-8 speeches and hear only opinions stated confidently as fact; promises of mana from heaven.
That is perhaps the greatest educational service you have provided us - a demonstration of the degree to which intelligent, educated, and productive people can be and are (speaking frankly) brainwashed.
Lautreamont's line for Obama, "a mind still brimming with inexperience."
He has had a fairly bold energy policy:
1. Subsidize bankrupt-to-be solar companies.
2. Regulate the coal industry out of business.
3. Cap and trade (failed, but not his fault, public too stupid to understand benefits /sarc).
4. End global warming (continued success of previous ten years).
5. Limit oil leases on federal land (while claiming credit for success of private drilling).
6. Improve the economy (fail, but what do socialists know about economies, or law almost-professors)?
7. Improve national security (hmmm).
8. Mandate higher MPG autos (might happen, or not).
What continues to astonish me is the sheer audacity of the central lie behind this apparently misbegotten program: "If you like your healthcare plan and your doctor, you can keep your healthcare plan and your doctor." Now, if Obama had skipped the business about keeping your doctor, then the lie would have had some embedded wiggle room and might have been seen as merely misleading or a half truth or at least something spinnable. But that wasn't good enough for our Prez, nothing short of a bald faced whopper, false in every respect and from every conceivable angle would do for this profoundly dishonest man.
RecChief said...
some of us saw through him early. And were vilified as racists for it.
And we still are. I refuse to be labeled a racist just because I have a good bullshit detector. Obama's a bullshitter, not because he's black but because he's a bullshitter. Funny how so many people with degrees from fancy Ivy League colleges were too stupid to see through his bullshit. He was one of them! His pants were neatly creased! He could read well from a teleprompter! What else did he need?
Yes you were defrauded, as was everybody who believed:
"If you like your insurance you can keep it."
"If you like you doctor you can keep him."
"This (ACA) will cover the majority of the uninsured."
"I will take a scalpel to the budget, line by line."
"Transparency will be the hallmark of my administration."
"The seas will stop rising and the earth will begin to heal."
"We shun the politics of slander and acrimony and embrace bipartisan cooperation."
"I will sit down with Republican leaders and find 900 million dollars of savings by cutting unnecessary programs."
"It's time to pivot and bring a laser focus to the economy."
"There's no Black America and White America. There's not a Blue America and Red America. We will bring all Americans together."
And there's plenty more where those whoppers came from.
Just imagine putting Mr. Obama in the same room with Washington, Lincoln, TR, FDR, and Eisenhower.
Just imagine.
Five titans. One bullshit artist.
Three more years.
"Martin Gale said...
What continues to astonish me is the sheer audacity of the central lie behind this apparently misbegotten program: "If you like your healthcare plan and your doctor, you can keep your healthcare plan and your doctor." Now, if Obama had skipped the business about keeping your doctor, then the lie would have had some embedded wiggle room and might have been seen as merely misleading or a half truth or at least something spinnable. But that wasn't good enough for our Prez, nothing short of a bald faced whopper, false in every respect and from every conceivable angle would do for this profoundly dishonest man.
10/23/13, 12:35 PM"
What percent of people can't keep their doctor? Is this percent higher than in a normal year when health plans reshuffle? Most of the doom and gloom stories have been about health care plans that are "cancelling" current policies so that they can update them to the new required minimums, but nobody is actually "losing" their plan. The GOP talking points that are all over here, instapundit and the corner imply some bizarre world where everyone is losing their doctor. I'd love to see the math of how that works.
As for Ann's "feelings" of being defrauded, there's a long and rich set of commentary about the early choice made in 2009 between health care and the environment, why the choice was made and who in the administration fell in each camp. Instead everyone around here is just talking about Ann's feelings. She's gone completely emotional over Obama (maybe this is why she voted for him in the first place). The Republicans are the virtuous saviors while Obama and the Democrats are full of nothing but the worst intentions. Boring.
phx: I know it is painful to do, but listen all the way through an Obama speech to hear polarizing. Any speech.
cheers
St. George: Just a few minutes ago we had 1,111 days, 11 hours 11 minutes and 11 seconds until the next presidential election.
Larry J said...
RecChief said...
some of us saw through him early. And were vilified as racists for it.
And we still are. I refuse to be labeled a racist just because I have a good bullshit detector. Obama's a bullshitter, not because he's black but because he's a bullshitter.
You are too kind sir. A bullshitter is someone who stretches the truth and makes up stories. Zero is way beyond that. He is a con man. He is someone who deliberately sets up false choices, demonizes, knocks down strawmen, etc. all for the purpose of fooling the public.
Con man. Con man gonna con.
phx said...
At last we got a health care bill - after years and years of vain effort and through several administrations.
And it's a complete mess.
Additionally, the entire economy did not collapse in 2008 as I and many others thought it would.
And that happened despite what Obama did, not because of it. If he were trying to deliberately tank the economy, what would he do differently?
I'm happy with our foreign policy.
Well goody for you. Saudi Arabia isn't so happy with it. Neither are the British and many other countries that have been long time allies. Obama's foreign policy is sucking up to enemies and pissing off allies.
Additionally, the entire economy did not collapse in 2008 as I and many others thought it would.
Thank God for Obama. Not only did the entire economy not collapse, but World War III didn't start and the moon stayed in orbit.
Mass psychogenic illness and hysteria.
Just like fears over peanut allergies and vaccines.
Obama's election was built on a platform of lie after lie, as I hinted at above, and Obamacare was the biggest source of his prevarication.
The ACA is a crappy law, filled with "placeholder" sections that were supposed to be "fixed" in conference. But then the Democrats lost their veto-proof majority and violated all the standard rules of parliamentary procedure in order to pass this horrible clusterfuck of a law. That it was hastily created and rushed through to be signed just exposed the Presidents' lies sooner than expected.
The political choice of The Best and The Brightest to further delay the rules promulgation in order to elide the electorate last year is the main reason that the software was flung into being without testing or validation. Every act is overtly political with Team Bright, and politics uber alles produces substandard results when progressive dreams bump up against reality. Code and results are reality. Obamacare is vaporware, and even after solving the "bugs" and "kinks" and "wrinkles" the result will be an inability to efficiently connect users to insurers.
Three weeks into the ACA nightmare and we still don't have ONE accurate accounting of how many Americans have successfully contracted for insurance? And that satisfies -- "I'm good with Obama"! -- some people here! Amazing.
And, Henry, of course, the reason the economy didn't collapse is that it's being jacked up, along with other economies, by terrific infusions of money printing. We're riding the tiger. Calm. Before. Storm.
They held it together long enough to get through 2012, even with Benghazi, etc to go along with no economic progress. Of course, the press was all in with the fantasy although some are actually true ideologues. And people like free stuff.
Oh and check out* the EMR provisions of Obamacare and the clusterfuck they've become too:
http://michellemalkin.com/2013/10/23/dont-forget-obamacares-electronic-medical-records-wreck/
Presently, 60% of all physicians report that they cannot meet the goals in the legislation and face loss of their licenses in 2015!
Best!
Brightest!
The C in ACA stands for "clusterfuck!"
*Check the sources for the data too. This isn't right wing opinion, it is Team Bestest & Brightest's own members.
At some point there may be a break with some Obamaphiles and liberal ideas.
For journalists, they'll have to come off looking like wise elders carrying forward the liberal covenant or like an empathetic coach rallying the team.
Most have gone in on Obamacare which is pretty clearly bad law, written with bad code, full of bad incentives. It's morally bad in that it ties the young into a half-baked transfer payment system with the old.
And I have folks in the family like Phx, pretty happy with Obama's foreign policy, and vaguely aligned with his goals for education and health-care. While he's not doing wonderfully in their minds, he's puttering along.
"Additionally, the entire economy did not collapse in 2008 as I and many others thought it would. "
hate to point this out, but obama was inagurated in 2009.
"chrisnavin.com said...
For journalists, they'll have to come off looking like wise elders carrying forward the liberal covenant or like an empathetic coach rallying the team."
Unfortunately, since most modern journalists believe that their jobs are to "set the agenda" there will be more cheerleading and propagandizing from that group.
"As an independent who voted for Obama in 2008, looking back at that crafty answer, I feel defrauded. Maybe back then those thoughtful, elaborate answers inflated us with hope, but pulling that one apart this morning, I feel anger and disgust. What a horrible squandering of 2 terms of presidency!"
Seriously...nearly 50% of the country is saying "I told you so". Quit blaming Obama for your stupidity.
The energy answer was non-controversial and made him sound measured and reasonable and middle of the road. He was just hiding his real self.
RecChief:
I'm thinking of a few in particular, whose careers depend upon being the voice of the liberal establishment for the young
I imagine where feminism, environmentalism, and multiculturalism meet hipsterism and all that is 'cool. They're cool right-thinking liberals discussing economic & political theory as well as policy debates
Combined with a general cultural trend towards the romanticization of science, the trendy new atheism, I suspect many parts of our society are becoming more secular and humanistic.
More 'European' in some ways, but not all.
Expect a tougher time for conservatism, especially religious and social conservatism.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Obama comes partly from his mom, partly from Bill Ayers, and partly from Derrick Bell.
All else is deception and camouflage.
Of course, NPR tries to hit this demographic, but they've also got the boomers to think about.
What's cool may increasingly be punk, anarchic, existential, nihilistic, post-post-modern for some cultural trend-setters.
Of course, the liberal establishment looks stodgy to such folks, but some liberal journalists pull it off.
Conservatives and Republicans are particularly poorly represented, distant and out of touch.
It's easy to string together pretty sounding words when words have no purpose other than to trigger feelings in the listener.
Nevertheless, taken as whole, candidate Obama was pretty easy to see through.
Obama's (and his handler's) mistake about energy was to cast renewable energy as a dam about to burst if only they could give a little shove to crest over the barrier holding it back. They discovered that it wasn't going to be that way. They never spoke of their initial miscalculations and they probably never will.
Edward Lunny said...
" Ron Popeil and his instant hair growth product." Well, that's a bit unfair and inaccurate. As I recall it was spray on hair simulator. I don't recall anything about growing hair.
Unlike the White house boob who said that he could lead, could do the job and has been shown to be woefully incompetent, repeatedly.
10/23/13, 12:11 PM
Yes sir! I stand corrected. Ron Popeil was only selling black shmutz to masquerade as hair. Speaking of ObamaCare infomercials maybe the ShamWow guy is available.
Althouse is way too invested in analyzing words, and in trusting to the power of argument and logic. She took his words at face value and was totally blind to Obama's obvious character flaws. (Dissing, in front of millions, the grandmother who raised him -- and who at that point was very ill -- was a big clue.) For him, words exist only insofar as they can dress up the imperial persona of "Obama." They're like costume bits or accessories he picks up or takes off at will, depending on the audience reaction, and they have no connection to his actions. He craves adoration -- that's the core of what he cares about.
Phx,
That's quite a mature foreign policy you have there.
Like your blog a lot, but "BBBWWWAAHHHAAAHHHH!" You feel like you were defrauded? As the saying goes, "What a rube!" How could you have voted for someone who was such an obvious poseur? How could you not see what an obvious poseur this guy was/is? This guy makes Bill Clinton look the epitome of integrity. Sucker!
"Curious George said... nearly 50% of the country is saying "I told you so". Quit blaming Obama for your stupidity."
Bingo. It's insulting to all the people who saw him as an empty suit from the start (for me the 2004 Dem convention) to claim you are just now examining his asinine and empty of real content campaign rhetoric. At BEST it was casting a feel good vote. It was never an informed vote.
For any intelligent person who did not have political skin in the game - which means but does not excuse dem politicians and the media - it was not a matter of betrayal or having being mislead.
If that's truly the excuse you offer then do not vote in the future.
In addition to be disconnected from his responsibilities as president the man is a lying sack.
I'm happy with our foreign policy.
You are - trust me on this - the only one.
How could you have voted for someone who was such an obvious poseur? How could you not see what an obvious poseur this guy was/is?
Althouse has already told us. She is a woman and voted her emotions.
phx said...
hate to point this out, but obama was inagurated in 2009.
I was expecting it to collapse anytime from about October 2008 on as I recall.
10/23/13, 1:44 PM
Fortunately we had a competent president who was competent enough to quickly put a halt on the runs on the banks. Unlike you I never expected a collapse in October 2008 since I expected a level of competence that was demonstrated but in the last 4 and half years I have seen nothing that can lead me or any sane person to believe in the competence of this Administration. Shovel ready b.s., cash for clunkers, stimulus and son of stimulus and QE to infinity and that marvelously well executed roll-out of ObamaCare. Some people are just capable of denying their lying eyes.
@phx,
And it seems Obama is not either.
You are - trust me on this - the only one.
Well, I have reservations about it, it's not an unqualified seal of approval. So any disputes over his foreign policy are fair enough. I nevertheless feel like we're better off on FP than we were eight years ago.
"Nobody's madder than me," Obama says now. That can't be true.
Nobody's madder than I.
SMH.
my view in 2008 was really simple. How could anyone in their right mind vote for a Chicago politician? or an Illinois politician. They will promise anything and deliver misery.
ted
Gahrie said...
How could you have voted for someone who was such an obvious poseur? How could you not see what an obvious poseur this guy was/is?
Althouse has already told us. She is a woman and voted her emotions.
Well, it was a bit more complicated.
No, it wasn't.
Phx,
I feel you're feelings may not be based upon enough understanding.
I feel you're feelings may not be based upon enough understanding.
Good snark. Sure beats engaging with people who think - and feel - differently than you do.
If President Obama actually believed any of that answer, the Keystone pipeline would be a nobrainer. Even if he believed that Keystone posed a risk to the environment, it would still be a two out of three-fer.
No, its just another example of Fen's Law.
I keep thinking about the "nobody's madder than me" line. First, a Harvard man should know that it should be "nobody's madder than I".
But I'll cut him some slack. Maybe he was trying to channel talk from regular people. OK. Not a good excuse for being a linguistic buffoon, but OK. Maybe a political move.
But Barry, we really don't care how mad you are, or how you're the maddest, or how hard you're trying to find the appropriate ass to kick.
You're supposed to get something done. I don't give the slightest gnat shit about how mad you are. That does not move me. I want you to get something done correctly. You are not doing that.
phx: Well, I have reservations about it, it's not an unqualified seal of approval. So any disputes over his foreign policy are fair enough. I nevertheless feel like we're better off on FP than we were eight years ago.
As poorly run as the Iraq invasion was, I think the rest of the world assumed that America's allies would fare better than America's enemies, which seems essential toward advancing American interests.
My impression (and that's all this is) is that world leaders just don't take Obama seriously enough to draw that conclusion.
Paulio asks . . .
What percent of people can't keep their doctor? Is this percent higher than in a normal year when health plans reshuffle? Most of the doom and gloom stories have been about health care plans that are "cancelling" current policies so that they can update them to the new required minimums, but nobody is actually "losing" their plan. The GOP talking points that are all over here, instapundit and the corner imply some bizarre world where everyone is losing their doctor. I'd love to see the math of how that works.
You ask a lot of questions, but before I answer let me ask you just one (though it is multipart): Is this whole ACA rollout brouhaha 1.) just of academic interest to you, or 2.) are you actually trying to navigate one of the individual healthcare insurance exchanges in the hopes of securing health insurance for calendar year 2014 by the 15 December deadline? I fall into case 2.); if you fall into case 1.), my interest in this conversation has suddenly dropped almost to zero, but I'm willing to waste a little of my time showing you what the world looks like when you log off The Daily Kos, and step outside your door. Most of what I have to say applies only to a sample of one (me), whereas the questions you ask pertain to the entire individual health insurance market and the only answer there is who knows?
So, for example, you ask: What percent of people can't keep their doctor?
Ans: In my case, that would be 100%.
The general questions you ask would properly require a crosstab analysis of the actual health exchange enrollees, but the very administration you flack for will not release those figures. However, they are good for a rose garden photo op with their usual collection of human props. Anyway, in the interest of diminishing the world's BS, even if only by a turd or two, here goes:
For the last 5 years I have had a sole proprietor/self employed health insurance policy with an HSA account, a so-called high deductible health plan or HDHP. This was not individual health insurance, but rather health insurance for a business of one. (Free lancers also fall into this category.) As a direct requirement of the ACA, and at least in my state, this entire class of insureds has been eliminated and dumped onto the individual market. As a result all sole proprietor policies have been discontinued (again, at least in my state) and this class of insureds are now required to enter the regular individual health insurance exchange for their insurance. (This post is already too long, so I won't talk about the exchange website itself, except to say it's a state website (not healthcare.gov) and it is just not ready for primetime (half the functionality is still under construction -- for example, there's no provider/physician search function)
And so when "shopping", I find: 1.) The only plans on the exchange anywhere near the cost of my existing plan, have higher deductibles and yet, amazingly, are not HSA eligible, and 2.) None of the plans available have the board certified specialists I am presently seeing in their provider/physician network. Higher premiums, higher deductibles (than even my existing HDHP!), higher annual caps, less flexibility financing my out of pocket expenses (no HSA), and fewer doctors. Other than that, nothing's changed. Oh wait, birth control is free and so is substance abuse treatment -- good, cause I need a drink while I'm getting screwed.
"What percent of people can't keep their doctor? Is this percent higher than in a normal year when health plans reshuffle? Most of the doom and gloom stories have been about health care plans that are "cancelling" current policies so that they can update them to the new required minimums, but nobody is actually "losing" their plan."
I am. To replace the coverage I'm losing due to ACA with the same coverage, I will have to pay an additional $400 a month. Insane.
did he pause to carefully frame a bizarre lie?
He doesn't lie, in order to do that he'd need to believe in the existence of truth. He just bullshits. All the time. It's a pathological thing.
Ann said:
I feel defrauded... I feel anger and disgust.
Ann, you know as well as everyone that Obama only does what politicians do. 24/7 BS.
History will indict the mass media for gross negligence, and voters for gross delusions.
Early on in the remarks, Obama says, "And I think it’s fair to say that nobody is more frustrated by that than I am"
Later on he says, "So here’s the bottom line. The product, the health insurance is good. The prices are good. It is a good deal. People don’t just want it; they’re showing up to buy it. Nobody is madder than me about the fact that the website isn’t working as well as it should, which means it’s going to get fixed."
Were we warned that leading from behind his party's majority in Congress, he would push through a massive health-care reform
Perhaps not in so many words, but it was easily foreseeable, and many did foresee it. Others did not.
"How could you have voted for someone who was such an obvious poseur? How could you not see what an obvious poseur this guy was/is?"
---------------------------------
"Althouse has already told us. She is a woman and voted her emotions."
10/23/13, 1:57 PM
Gahrie, I'm waiting for your favorite misogynist comment.
"That's why the 17th Amendent should be repealed."
That was in response to phx.
Transcript here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/10/21/remarks-president-affordable-care-act
I lost my doctor and clinic way back in 1991 when my current private health insurance provider was no longer accepted by the clinic and doctor I used.
In response to "Martin Gale said..." (long post)
Martin--I really appreciate your careful reply. While peppered with snark it was still substantive and clear. I'm also sympathetic to your situation, but I do fall into category 1, so you are not interested in much further engagement. Ultimately, in anything like this while individual stories are interesting, we need to see the high level aggregated data to know if the program is on net improving things and how many unfortunate consequences there are. I assume (and this applies to Freeman who also commented) you don't qualify at all for any of the subsidies?
I understand that the administration is holding back the data, but I don't really blame them at this point. Yes they've fudged the roll out and if they don't get it on track by early November it's a huge error on their part for which there should be serious political consequences. However, I'm tired of the total BULLSHIT of "accountability" we are now hearing from Republicans, who have absolutely no history of requiring or demonstrating interest in accountability for any government program they are associated with, be it a war or Medicare Part D. Certainly the standard "three weeks and no accountability!" that someone mentioned above is laughable. I'm also disappointed (and have been since before the election) that Althouse's usually enjoyable "bullshit detection" is now only focused on "liberals", except for the occasional comment on same-sex marriage. She's become a phenocopy of Instapundit,except with dog pictures.
"As an independent who voted for Obama in 2008, looking back at that crafty answer, I feel defrauded."
Really? Sorry, Ann, the only one who defrauded you was you. Go back and look at what we anti-Obama people were saying about him. You believed his BS because you wanted to, not because it was the slightest bit credible.
Glad you're figuring this out now, but you should be ashamed of yourself for taking this long.
Gahrie, I'm waiting for your favorite misogynist comment.
"That's why the 17th Amendent should be repealed."
Thanks Inga for providing yet more evidence for why the 19th Amendment should be repealed.
LOL, I actually had 19th Amendement down first and second guessed myself. Yes, yes, repeal the woman's vote and all will be right with the world!
A man rises to the top of the Corrupt Cook County political machine without making any waves, then makes promises of hope and change to get elected.
Some things never change.
Tank:
Well, it was a bit more complicated.
I'll accept an excuse and apology for voting for him the first time.
However there is no rational excuse or possible apology for voting for him the second time....
Yes, yes, repeal the woman's vote and all will be right with the world!
Repealing the 19th won't fix the world's problems, it will simply allow men to fix the problems afterward.
As an independent who voted for Obama in 2008, looking back at that crafty answer, I feel defrauded.
You voted for Obama because he was black. He had no other qualifications. And last time I checked, he was still black, so you have no basis for feeling defrauded.
"If you like your healthcare plan and your doctor, you can keep your healthcare plan and your doctor."
This should be the first plank of the Republican plan. A system restore for those that want it. That means abolishing those ACA requirements that are eliminating low cost plans.
Also abolish the individual mandate.
Also abolish the requirement that IPAD determines who gets what treatment. This is the worst part of all though it isn't in effect so people don't see the problems. 1. The acceptable treatments under Obamacare are based on 4 year long studies of what is being used as treatment. Therefore the acceptable treatments will always be more then four years out of date for everyone except the rich who can pay cash. 2. Those accepted for treatment will be in a queue based on likelihood of recovery, meaning who lives longest and who leads the healthiest life. That will not be minorities so then their present relative ill-health will be statistically baked into the system and used to deny them rationed treatments in the future. This sickens me because I know that minorities are supporting Obama because he says he is ending inequality. The silence of the lefties on this issue - the inequity that will increase under Obamacare - does not sicken me because I think they are hypocrites period
Then Republicans should pass a series of small bills including regulation of public service unions so that pensions and cadillac plans aren't pushing up healthcare costs. This requires negotiation. It should be accepted that anyone, anyone in either party who opposes negotiation, should be voted out of office for that sole reason even if that meant the election of Anthony Weiner (supposing that he were credibly supporting negotiation) or McRino or Lindsay Graham. (I do NOT think, by the way, that Obama supports negotiation, I know he does not.)
I'd like an apology from those who put Bush in office. 4000 dead and countless more maimed in Iraq, a far worse debacle than Obamacare.
Was hoping to be able to wait to respond to Paulio until I could get to a proper keyboard. But here goes: take that filthy lie you proffered that "nobody is losing their health care plan" and shove it.
Obama seeks to exploit human life itself and a progressive exploitation of its labor to realize his dreams of redistributive change. At least those human lives that escape Planned Parenthood and abortion clinics. In this respect he is exactly like every other left-wing lunatic suffering from delusions of grandeur. To his credit, other than normalizing the termination of human lives at the rate of several million annually, he has refrained from overt purging of the general population. In that respect, he differs from his ideological brethren.
Paulio, here is some aggregated data for you to chew over then.
Between 85-91% (survey's varied) of people in the USA were covered by a health insurance plan that they liked and wanted to keep prior to Obamacare. Every single plan was affected in some way (increased covered procedures, lifetime caps, pre-existing conditions, etc.) that increased costs. Every insurer now has strict limits to what they can spend on "administrative overhead" out of premiums they collect, which is a whole other clusterfuck because the information transmitted to insurers by healthcare.gov is inaccurate, incomplete and presently requires 100% human intervention to verify data. That is, overhead costs are skyrocketing during the rollout but cannot be paid by premiums if they exceed 20% of net.
So costs on everybody who is not being subsidized by ACA are going up. My contribution went up about 12% last year. I'll find out tomorrow how much it goes up this year. In addition, because of the heavy hand of government intrusion on doctors (I suggest you read that article by Michelle Malkin on EMR requirements) many doctors, including my primary last year, decided to convert their practice to "concierge service" which is a fancy way of saying pay cash up front and we'll just ignore the whole insurance racket altogether. Unfortunately, I'm not able to afford that and switched to the same doc my wife uses. At least he's good too.
So, we have about 90% of the country who didn't want a change but who have all had change imposed upon us. That leaves the 10-15% of the "uninsured" who in many cases were youngsters who don't want insurance anyway. The best estimate of the Bestest and Brightest in Washington is that about 70% of those folks will now be eligible for Obamacare. So we have flipped over the insurance model and imposed costs in order to service 7% of the population. Maybe you're OK with that. I think it stinks.
This does not count the human cost of the perverted incentives the ACVA imposed on companies. For the first time more part-time jobs were created than full-time in our economy. And it isn't even close. Something like 80% of jpobs added to payrolls this year were less than 30-hour per week gigs. Why 30? Because that's the arbitrary number Obama (or Pelosi or Reid?) chose to specify as a "full-time worker" for purposes under the ACA. So now we are a nation that cannot create enough jobs to employ our citizens, especially our youth.
This isn't a bug of Obamacare. It's a feature. It is causing persistent high unemployment, which leads to misery for many people. And if these same idiots push amnesty through guess who will get those part-time restaurant jobs?
With his effort to promote dissociation of risk, and separate productivity from entitlements, he is sponsoring corruption of the head and tail which is consuming the body. This is quite different from the corruption suffered by other communist and socialist regimes, where redistributive schemes principally corrupt the head, and leave the remainder of the population to languish in the state monopolies' residue.
When your best argument in favor of Obamacare is that the Iraq War was worse, it's probably time to pack it in.
Gallup Poll. ACA favorablity up, even among independents.
John C. That's not even nearly close to my best argument in favor of Obamacare. I don't like Obamacare, but it's better than what Republicans had in mind, which was basically nothing.
Inga, nothing run by the government.
Which in your book is nothing.
"I feel defrauded."
Let's let the bureaucratic fuckups feel defunded instead.
"I am still waiting for evidence of Obama's intelligence."
Oh, he's intelligent enough.
His problem isn't lack of intelligence. It's ignorance and arrogance. A very dangerous combination in a powerful and reasonably intelligent person.
The MSM was so enthralled with the One that they never questioned anything he said.
The blinders may be slowly coming off but I don't expect truthful reporting on him now or at anytime in the future.
Money/special interests always played a role, but now it has taken over as the only interest.
Losing my primary on January 1st, because the employee switched plans and the office doesn't use that plan.
For purposes of these discussions about the ACA, unless you are currently, or soon to be uninsured, and trying to shop for and get coverage via an exchange, your curious looks at the system or what you've read from your preferred news/opinion source, is of no interest to me.
Well goody for Saudi Arabia. A lot of us aren't all that keen on them either.
Let's see how your attitude is as gasoline and fuel oil prices skyrocket.
That'll take a stagnant economy and really goose it, won't it?
Hey, hey, Paulio . . .
We are obviously coming at this ACA business from very different perspectives, which was the reason for my 2-part question. You "type 1." people seem concerned about the problems with the ACA and its implementation mostly because you think it makes your guy look bad (it does). On the other hand, the emerging details of the ACA (remember, gotta pass the law to find out what's in it, . . . yadda, yadda, yadda) together with the abject failure of the rollout impacts we "type 2." people more directly. For example, I'm outraged by the foundational lie behind the ACA ("If you like your healthcare plan . . .") and you are not, because I have to live with the consequences of that lie and you do not. That's why I insist upon delineating the contours of the lie:
1.) The fact that no language in the ACA even mentions the fate of existing health plans (loved, liked, or otherwise) except to spell out those which must be discontinued (alas, mine).
2.) The many times during the marketing push for the ACA, prior to its passage, that Obama would give one of those "myths about Obamacare" speeches, the most prominent myth being that someone in my position might ever have to contemplate losing their health plan. Remember what a scandal it was when Rep. Joe Wilson yelled, "You lie!", during an Obama marketing speech? And to a joint session of congress, no less! Rude, I agree, but tell me what scandal attaches itself to the foundational lie of the ACA? None.
3.) How many times have we heard from ACA proponents, "The ACA is not a government takeover of healthcare". Well: 1.) My insurance has been discontinued by order of the government, 2.) I am compelled by the government to seek a replacement plan or pay a fine, 3.) The replacement plans are only available through a government website, and 4.) The terms and conditions of each plan (coverage, deductibles, etc . . .) are dictated by the government. And yet, only a wingnut would say the ACA represents a government takeover of healthcare.
But so what? From your, frankly, political perspective my outrage just needs to be managed or deflected, maybe with a few references to a time when Bush lied, or Bush mucked with healthcare, or Bush whatever. Stop. None of that matters to me. I'm a "type 2.": I don't care about Medicare Part D, I don't care about Saddam's WMD (or not!), I'm just a fella who had a health plan he liked, was told he could keep it (no ifs, ands, or, buts!), had it taken away from him, and now has to make his way through Mordor all the way to Mt. Doom just to maybe, possibly secure a replacement that's just not as good. But, at least Obama has promised that no one will bite my finger off, and he wouldn't lie. Would he?
Chef Mojo, does the US need Saudi Arabia's oil anymore?
War is the art of deception.
This Marxist Muslim sociopath is the best liar ever seen. See that loving smile on him. Success at removing the American World Hegemony makes him ecstatic.
@ Paulio:
Headline: "Millions of Americans Are Losing Their Health Plans Because of Obamacare"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/millions-americans-are-losing-their-health-plans-because-obamacare_764602.html
Like I said. Shove it.
Regarding presidential candidates, John Kerry was one of the least qualified in a long while. No real professional or legislative accomplishments other than getting elected senator in Smurf-blue Massachusetts. He even had to marry for money.
Kerry's track record, as feeble as it was, still dwarfed Barry O's.
It was easy to see that Barry was an unrepentant Marxist growing up, never lived or worked anywhere where he may have been disabused of those notions, and ultimately polished his knob in Democratic and corrupt (redundant?) Chicago.
And the people that voted for him didn't see this coming?
I shouldn't sound that angry about it but it rankles me to think about our nation being held hostage to the Saudis for any reason.
"Larry Nelson said...History will indict the mass media for gross negligence..."
No. It was not negligence then and is not negligence now. Negligence is not exercising the prudence expected in your action or inaction consistent with your level of knowledge. The media, in full knowledge of what they were doing, was guilty of malfeasance, not negligence. And it still is actively dishonest when it comes to preserving Obama. Candy Crowley in the presidential debate proved that.
GOP unfavorables at all time highs. Thanks Ted Cruz. Despite Obamacare glitches, wow.
Mike Lee in trouble too.
phx said...
At last we got a health care bill - after years and years of vain effort and through several administrations.
You had to elect a dictator to get it.
What is it about fascism you find so compelling?
phx said...
I shouldn't sound that angry about it but it rankles me to think about our nation being held hostage to the Saudis for any reason.
Well then. You can thank your environmentalist friends, previous democrat congresses, and your elected king from keeping the country from exploiting our oil assets. All king Obama has to do is ask congress. Or maybe just an executive order.
If Pol Pot were running as a democrat you'd elect him.
hey don't go knocking Ron Popiel. his pocket fisherman worked like a champ for me on road trips in Alaska. Ann and the other easily duped types who voted for Comrade Urkel wanted to be hypnotized into believing that the economycould be powered by unicorn farts and demonstrations.
Paulo,
I hope you stick around and continue to comment.
Your first comment here appeared to me to be as incoherent as it was confident. So please continue since I have no indication yet as to what you actually believe or wish to convey.
Inga and PHX,
The two of you were once classic concern trolls, What happened?
There is a crisis! We must do something! This is something! Therefore, we must do it!
Sorry Inga, nothing would have been a lot better. I'm not sure there actually was a crisis, but I'll agree that there certainly is now.
I suppose it's vaguely poetic, given that the admonition to doctors is "First, do no harm."
"CWJ said...
Paulo,
I hope you stick around and continue to comment.
Your first comment here appeared to me to be as incoherent as it was confident. So please continue since I have no indication yet as to what you actually believe or wish to convey."
I wonder when people say these things if they are physically smirking as they write it? Do they think they sound clever? Do they under any scenario actually want to engage with me or is it some weird mental point list they have running? I don't really care.
I do think I owe Mike a reply because he has written two very careful, well-argued, thoughtful posts in response to mine.
We do clearly come at this from different perspectives and I hope your situation gets sorted out in the end to your advantage. To tackle your individual points: I don't think under any scenario the law could've been written to require maintenance of coverage at a specific price. That would've been disastrous. I do think the intention of the law was that "if you like your health care coverage you can keep it"--the idea being that this mainly applied to folks getting it through their employers. As I've mentioned earlier, the "millions" of people cited that are "losing" their plans are getting converted to other plans with different minimum coverage. In some number of cases--the intention of the law was "most"--they should pay no more for the new plan than the old one and maintain coverage, either because of the new pricing or because of the subsidies. You may have seen a recent piece showing that three couples Hannity had on that were negatively affected by the ACA--"losing" their health care or other--had actually no idea what they were talking about and would either end up neutral or ahead of their current financial situation. So I find it difficult to assess the overall balance of the law based on anecdote, especially when the anecdote teller might be misinformed (not accusing of that). here's the link to the piece:
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/
That said, with a law this big, it's entirely possible that some folks are ending up behind and that may include you (you never did answer my question on whether you qualify for a subsidy). I think we don't know yet from the media reporting--or the White house--where that line will fall.
Finally, I bring up previous examples with Bush not to say "he was just as bad or worse" but just to point out that I think our politics has devolved to a ridiculous level where no one is willing to call out their "own side" or apply anything remotely like the same standards of objectivity. I defended Bush against the "Bush lied" slander because the accusation of "lying" implies knowledge of the subject's mental state. I think Bush really did believe he'd find WMDs. It's a pretty hard argument to make that he didn't. In the same way, I think Obama thinks this law will on balance help most people and also that it was designed to maintain coverage in the majority of cases where good coverage was available and being used. You can say Obama was wrong or Bush was wrong, but the armchair psychology that fills up most of these posts is just a waste of time.
Paulio: tl;dr
John C. Uninsured people will now be insured, preexisting conditions will not prevent a person from being covered. You have more options to pick from in the marketplace. I don't see the kind of harm you seem to see. I still don't like Obamacare and would much rather we have a Public Option.
OK Paulio,
Sorry. No smirk and no I don't think I'm clever. But rereading your 12:48, 2:58, and now your most recent comment, I am confident that you are as incoherent as I originally thought.
"As an independent who voted for Obama in 2008, looking back at that crafty answer, I feel defrauded."
“It takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.”
~Homer Simpson
Inga said...
John C. Uninsured people will now be insured,
The left claimed there were 50 million uninsured Americans before Obamacare. They're hoping to enroll 7 million in Obamacare, most of which already had insurance. But somehow the problem is solved.
They were told there would be no math.
Uninsured people will now be insured Inga, two years ago (between jobs) I was able, in less than a couple hours, get an affordable and quite adequate policy. Now in a similar position, I am unable, after several attempts, to get enrolled in any plan, much less to be able to shop for one. As best as I can figure out, the best I can hope for is something with a very high deductible that covers lots of things our family will never need at a cost, with subsidies, much higher than I was paying for in 2012. Please stop comparing the press release version that does not exist in reality to what is actually going on. You-trust me on this-don't know.
You had to elect a dictator to get it.
What is it about fascism you find so compelling?
Oh please. Every time I get depressed about the ridiculous things Democrats say, a Republican pull me right out of the dumps.
Everything he says is a sham and a lie - including the "Nobody's madder than me," which is just this year's "I take full responsibility." Designed merely to deflect any more criticism, why keep firing when he's on his back? He's a fraud. F.R.A.U.D.
And what he really is is the guy who unseals divorce records, and putting him in office gave him access to all the secrets. Nothing will stop him now, He's running roughshod over the Constitution.
We're done. I don't forgive those who voted for him.
Did he say energy?
Here you go:
Obama backed green energy failures May be it was all pay to play, I hear that is big in Chicago.
Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
Chef Mojo, does the US need Saudi Arabia's oil anymore?
Inga, get a clue.
Oil prices are fungible. Doesn't matter whether we need their oil or not. Prices are set by the market, and Obama has tossed a wrench into it. That is his intention, after all.
But, yes. At this moment in time, we do need their oil. It's easier to refine.
So, what do you heat your place with up there in 'Sconisn?
Paulio: I do think the intention of the law was that "if you like your health care coverage you can keep it"--the idea being that this mainly applied to folks getting it through their employers.
No, idiot. You have it exactly backwards.
Even then, your analysis fails miserably, because it is people who rely on their employer for health care who are most likely to lose it (through the employer changing plans, or via reducing hours below 30) and have the least control over it.
No, idiot. You have it exactly backwards.
What's the point of calling names here? Can't you argue better than that?
phx: I don't want to kowtow to the House of Saud just so you can drive your SUV on cheap-as-shit gasoline.
Your understanding of the global economy is nil. Seriously. That's a stupid thing to say.
High oil prices are like sugar in the gas tank of the economy. Oil is a key input in the final price of almost anything you can imagine. High oil prices cause the cost of EVERYTHING to go up, which in turn causes DEMAND for everything to go down. This results in massive layoffs in transportation, manufacturing, and everyone who supports them.
Run a restaurant near a factory? You get killed, too. Your fixed costs don't go away. Your loan payments don't go away. But your customers do. Multiply this a billion times over a global economy - including places where people are only barely getting by on a subsistance level as is. High oil prices cause poverty in America and outright famine abroad.
You think our strategic interest in Saudi Arabia is about being able to run an SUV on the cheap? Geez, libs are predictably stupid.
phx: Can't you argue better than that?
Sure. And I did, in the next paragraph.
See, it might be tough for you to grasp, but it begins by not accepting premises that are idiotic, like Paulio does ("nobody is losing their plan") and you ("I don't want to kowtow to Saudi Arabia so you can run your SUV on cheap gas").
People who start with stupid ideas like that are idiots, by definition.
My argument does not rely on Paulio to win.That would be an ad hominem fallacy. However, since I falsified his premise already, referring to him as an 'idiot' is simply making an observation, based on available evidence.
Paulio, I'm not being converted to another plan. My plan is ending, so I have to buy new coverage. When I originally purchased my current coverage which Obamacare is eliminating, there were no pre-existing conditions to worry about. Now there are, so I lose my coverage and am now only eligible for coverage that includes pre-existing conditions. (A reasonably priced no pre-existing conditions replacement for my current coverage is available where you pay for the plan and the fine, but now I'm not eligible.)
As someone who has purchased health insurance since her first adult job, even though I had to buy it independently then, I am more than a little ticked off about all this. And no, I do not qualify for a subsidy.
You fucks elected President "get in their faces," who refers to his opponents as arsonists, economic terrorists and hostage-takers, and you want to accuse me of "poisoning the argument?"
Fuck you.
You and your lib friends like Paulio are idiots.
I've explained why in some detail.
You, fortunately, are redeemable. All you have to do is address the argument instead of whining like a bitch about me being mean to you.
You have also occasionally demonstrated flashes of insight here, over the months and years.
Paulio, on the other hand, isn't entitled to what President "hit back twice as hard" calls "civility" until he stops advancing such easily disproved lies as "no one is losing their health care plan."
Holy crap, that's up there with "The world is a flat-a, like a pancake-a!"
Don't put all the blame for the Dem's crappy energy policy on Obama's shoulders: he was also mislead by the pre-existing Gore faction, an entrenched academic elite, and also by progressive Sullivanists.
phx said...
You had to elect a dictator to get it.
What is it about fascism you find so compelling?
Oh please. Every time I get depressed about the ridiculous things Democrats say, a Republican pull me right out of the dumps.
No. Really. What is it about forcing people to do things that they would not otherwise do you find compelling?
CWJ said...
Inga and PHX,
The two of you were once classic concern trolls, What happened?
A whiff of power brings out their true nature.
They would like nothing more than to throw you on the ground and stomp your face bloody.
Why? Because you question their cherished beliefs.
I'm happy with our foreign policy.
I'm legitimately curious as to what aspect one would be happy with it.
All throughout Obama's administration the GOP has shown itself to be a (self) destructive, polarizing agent in our politics and society.
An opposition party opposes. Shocking, I know. Know what Dems did under Bush? The same thing --- except without Bush calling them terrorists, etc.
nobody is actually "losing" their plan
Florida Blue just advised 300,000 people they will be losing theirs. Just happened yesterday.
Also MY insurance premium increased 33% this year. THIRTY-THREE PERCENT. And I work for a large company that couldn't be in more bed with the Feds if we tried. I'm having major problems making ends meet and ACA is a huge problem.
Michael I always thought his speeches were great - very nonpartisan
Can you link to a non-partisan speech of his? Any of them?
I nevertheless feel like we're better off on FP than we were eight years ago.
Agreed. But Clinton did have a terrible FP.
4000 dead and countless more maimed in Iraq, a far worse debacle than Obamacare.
It's only been 3 weeks. Give Obamacare more time.
How can one country "fix" "climate change"? And if it could, and if this somehow made energy cheaper instead of more expensive, EVERY country would benefit from the new technology so they'd ALL have more money for defense, starting a new arms race. Thus, how would it improve our own national security?
There were so many of us who saw right through Barack Obama. Why didn't you?
Regarding affection phx has for Obama's foreign policy, there is a somewhat contrary opinion from Dan Henniger in today's Wall Street Journal.
Here's the money quote:
"Bluntly, Mr. Obama's partners are concluding that they cannot do business with him. They don't trust him. Whether it's the Saudis, the Syrian rebels, the French, the Iraqis, the unpivoted Asians or the congressional Republicans, they've all had their fill of coming up on the short end with so mercurial a U.S. president. And when that happens, the world's important business doesn't get done. It sits in a dangerous and volatile vacuum."
Keep in mind that the French have recalled their ambassador from Washington, the British just told us to get stuffed when Obama wanted their support against Syria, Angela Merkel is livid with us, and Vlad Putin is openly contemptuous. So it's not just the Arab-speaking world where Obama's foreign policy has been disastrous.
Is there something in this manure pile for anyone to like?
Prof Althouse--you were chumped.
OTOH, and in defense of your, McCain was no bed of roses either. He was, and still is, a couple of sandwiches shy of a picnic.
"Blogger Jason said...
You fucks elected President "get in their faces," who refers to his opponents as arsonists, economic terrorists and hostage-takers, and you want to accuse me of "poisoning the argument?"
Fuck you.
You and your lib friends like Paulio are idiots.
I've explained why in some detail.
You, fortunately, are redeemable. All you have to do is address the argument instead of whining like a bitch about me being mean to you.
You have also occasionally demonstrated flashes of insight here, over the months and years.
Paulio, on the other hand, isn't entitled to what President "hit back twice as hard" calls "civility" until he stops advancing such easily disproved lies as "no one is losing their health care plan."
Holy crap, that's up there with "The world is a flat-a, like a pancake-a!""
Anyone can go back and read my comments and no where do I assert "no one is losing their health care plan." I thought Althouse was all about "reading carefully"--Jason apparently cannot read, but he can curse. Is that the point of the Althouse comment board? Random cursing after random copy-pasting without context? Glad to know it hasn't changed after the hiatus, I will return to better things...
Paulio said...Anyone can go back and read my comments and no where do I assert "no one is losing their health care plan...
In your first comment at 12;48 pm.
"Most of the doom and gloom stories have been about health care plans that are "cancelling" current policies so that they can update them to the new required minimums, but nobody is actually "losing" their plan."
Best I can tell from this one thread you can neither express yourself clearly, read carefully, or tell the truth. You can, however, spout the talking points of the day. You get caught out as an idiot, as noted by others, because you're a couple of days late and in the ever evolving, contradictory, and fraudulent world of progressive talking points...well...
Its always good entertainment value when a confused, uninformed, but wicked wicked smart progressive calls bullshit on his own talking points. Happens a lot. Gift that keeps on giving.
Ouch, B! That's gonna leave a mark!
Blogger B said...
Paulio said...Anyone can go back and read my comments and no where do I assert "no one is losing their health care plan...
In your first comment at 12;48 pm.
"Most of the doom and gloom stories have been about health care plans that are "cancelling" current policies so that they can update them to the new required minimums, but nobody is actually "losing" their plan."
Best I can tell from this one thread you can neither express yourself clearly, read carefully, or tell the truth. You can, however, spout the talking points of the day. You get caught out as an idiot, as noted by others, because you're a couple of days late and in the ever evolving, contradictory, and fraudulent world of progressive talking points...well...
Its always good entertainment value when a confused, uninformed, but wicked wicked smart progressive calls bullshit on his own talking points. Happens a lot. Gift that keeps on giving.
10/24/13, 10:51 AM
Most of the doom and gloom stories have been about health care plans that are "cancelling" current policies so that they can update them to the new required minimums, but nobody is actually "losing" their plan."
Let's look at what I said again and let me show you what words mean. I also recommend a great book you can find online or in a book store. It's called a dictionary, but you also have to learn how the words all fit together. I'm referring here to all the stories I had read up until that point about "cancelled" policies being replaced with new policies that meet the Obamacare minimums. So, people are getting a similar policy from the same company. They might have to pay more, they might not. But in those stories, in those cases, nobody was losing their health care. Subsequently some folks on here gave examples where they are unable to get any kind of similar plan from the same company for anything close to the same price and don't qualify for subsidies. I would agree those folks are "losing" their current plan. I go on to wonder how many of those folks there are as they are certainly important to determining the potential success or failure of the program as a whole.
Of course, you can willfully misread everything that I say or you can engage in the most charitable reading and try to have a real discussion.
But keep coming with the personal insults, it's deep thinking like that which is winning your side all those elections! Oh wait...
"But keep coming with the personal insults, it's deep thinking like that which is winning your side all those elections! Oh wait..."
10/24/13, 2:57 PM
Paulio, exactly.
"Most of the doom and gloom stories have been about health care plans that are "cancelling" current policies so that they can update them to the new required minimums, but nobody is actually "losing" their plan."
But, and I do not know why you don't get this with your wicked good reading skills, that is not what you claimed. You claimed that you never said 'nobody is losing their plan.' One again, we see that a lot here from drive by progressives. You pushed a talking point without any real grasp of its veracity. Your distinction is that you type a lot of words to achieve the same beclowning of oneself they usually manage in a single paragraph.
And what exactly does a dictionary have to do with a false claim? Are you suggesting that the readers here need a dictionary to interpret the words that make up your prose? That your intended words are different from what you type? If so, I'll be kind and suggest that you MEANT a thesaurus though I don't see how that applies either. I think what you are actually reaching for here is that you simply do not express yourself well.
You pwned yourself. Suck it up and move on.
BTW: pwned...you know, you could be right about your personal use of a dictionary if not others so do try looking 'pwned' up in the urban dictionary. I'm being a nice guy just trying to prevent you from beclowning yourself again.
In closing, you came in thinking you were smarter and better informed than the commenters here based on your conviction that, since they tend conservative and you are a sheepfold progressive, why, then, it must be so. You still think so. The sense that you now realize that you were days behind the wave on talking points is there, but you can't keep yourself from assuaging your ego by claiming that somehow the fault lies with the readers assigning common english meaning to your words and phrases. As a result, your latest comment being what is called doubling down on stupid...gift that keeps on giving.
If having your insurance plan banned by law and replaced with a different, more expensive plan does not amount to "losing" it, I guess I'm one of the people who needs that newfangled dictionary.
Paulio....
I didn't just swear. I shot you down in flames.
Because you're stupid.
Christ, talking to these people is like talking to Hitler in his bunker, trying to pierce his delusions that Steiner still had an an army to attack with.
Their OODA-loop is totally unravelled.
For the last time B and all you others who have not only misrepresented me but also now made many suppositions about my intelligence, my politics, and my psychological well-being: the phrase "nobody is actually "losing" their plan" appeared at the end of a long sentence in my original post. The beginning of that sentence affected the meaning of that phrase at the end of the sentence. The words in isolation may not mean the same thing as the word in the context of the sentence. That's how sentences work! That's why those other words were there. You don't just get to pick any random words from a sentence and say "see you said it! that's what you meant. pwn! pwn! I'm clever and you are wrong" Let's try an example shall we?
Using your version of "reading" B, these are things you've said about me today:
You've called me a "wicked smart progressive"
You said I was "better informed than the commenters here"
See how it's fun to take words out of context! Now I feel warm and fuzzy.
As to comparing me to Hitler in the bunker...yikes. Great argument--I guess that's when you know you've won, when you get to play the Hitler card.
I have a feeling Jason was one of the guys on here pointing the Obama-supporters to the "unskewed polls" website before the election and declaring with conviction how Obama could never win. There were dozens of them on here...hilarious. You just dusted yourself off though and are equally confident now about things you are equally wrong about. Must be nice in there...
Paulio: Tripling down on stupid.
Own it, Paul. You were destroyed.
Some people have illusions of grandeur.
Thanks Paulio for well reasoned, rational responses to these people. You have out argued them and done it with finess!
"Paulio said...the phrase "nobody is actually "losing" their plan" appeared at the end of a long sentence in my original post. The beginning of that sentence affected the meaning of that phrase at the end of the sentence."
Paulios, you do realize, a reading comprehension maven like yourself wouldn't have missed it after all, that I QUOTED THE WHOLE SENTENCE when I responded to your challenge.
And your challenge was that 'Anyone can go back and read my comments and no where do I assert "no one is losing their health care plan.' It wasn't that you may have meant something other than that. It was a very precise statement. No context obfuscation detectable by even the most casual reader.
Stop digging. You pwned yourself. I pointed it out derisively. Get over yourself and learn from it.
And Inga, I note that Paulio did not ask you to stick your oar in or is even acknowledging your content free prattle. Could be he realizes that having a loony toon like you on his side less than helpful.
1st thing abusers do, isolate their victims.
Were it anyone else I would have assumed that statement was intended to be humorous. But you, I take it at face value...your paranoiac decline is accelerating.
Shhh, Inga.
Grownups are talking.
It's amazing to me that Paulio is to full of himself to realize that even if you took the whole paragraph he wrote as written, it's still a big, fat, hairy falsehood, for the same reason.
Post a Comment