Jonathan Gruber, a prominent M.I.T. health economist, wrote an Op-Ed column and was quoted frequently in other Times columns, news articles and blogs on health care reform before it came to light that he had a contract worth nearly $400,000 to analyze health proposals for the Obama administration....
The ideal expert source is entirely independent, with no stake in an outcome. But in reality, the most informed sources often have involvements, which is why they know what they know. Readers are entitled to disclosure so they can decide if there is a conflict that would affect the credibility of the information....
Gruber, the health care economist, wrote an Op-Ed column in July supporting an excise tax on so-called Cadillac health plans. Not long before, he had signed a contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to analyze the economic impact of various health care proposals in Congress. He did not tell Op-Ed editors, nor was the contract mentioned on at least 12 other occasions when he was quoted in The Times after he was consulting for the administration. After a blogger reported on Gruber’s government contract on the Daily Kos Web site, Gruber did volunteer it to Steven Greenhouse, a Times reporter interviewing him for an article on the excise tax...
Gruber said, “I guess it never occurred to me that the fact that I was doing technical modeling would matter.” He said he has long supported the tax and that the administration opposed it when he wrote his column, so he was hardly bending his views to a government paymaster.
१८ नोव्हेंबर, २०१४
When the NYT public editor criticized Jonathan Gruber for failure to disclose his interest in a matter he was commenting on.
Back in January 2010, the New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt wrote:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१८५ टिप्पण्या:
Another liar. No news here.
Means justifying the Ends is a classic Progressive excuse...
Yeah, what's half a million dollars, more or less, between friends?
I like Jonah Goldberg's "rent-seeking remora" over the Bavarian original for Gruber, which is "miner".
Although Jonathan has indeed mined himself a mighty poke to date, "rent-seeking remora" just has that Jetsonian je ne sais quoi that a guy with a hamster haircut and a lisp desperately needs to move forward from this.
“I guess it never occurred to me that the fact that I was doing technical modeling would matter.”
Sure.
"Technical modeling." Just a green eyeshade guy.
The "journolist" was in full force during this time. Lefties just blogging and writing and supporting each other, add in the WH linking to all the lefties that were writing and blogging and it looks like everyone says this Gruber guy is the next thing to Jesus Christ.
The NYT occasionally does something right, but I don't hold my breath in between those times because I'd be blue.
Similar to Frank Grimes, his friends called him "Groobie".
Good example of a public editor doing his/her job.
The thing that pains me here is that Gruber isn't being crucified because he lied. He's being crucified because he said things that "thou shalt not say aloud"
Check out David Axelrod's comments on him....you can tell he's not putting down Gruber's contribution to the ACA, but instead he's saying that Gruber's a fool for publicly admitting that they were deliberately scheming the CBO, misleading the American public, and lying about what they knew (i.e. that you'd keep your health plan, when Gruber's own analysis indicated 5 million would lose theirs)
There really needs to be a 21st century version of running someone out of town...
Wasn't Jonathan Gruber just "some guy" in the ACA "neighborhood"?
Obama probably just read about him in the paper!
As to Gruber, all the supposed "revelations" of the past week or so were anything but to most economic conservatives. They're just confirmation. Pretty much from day one anyone with half a brain knew that despite all the misdirections, obfuscations, theatrics, complexities, and vagaries that the various ACA architects and boosters in the media foisted on the general public, there was one inescapable reality that trumped everything else: You can't suddenly grant coverage to 30-40 million people without somebody somewhere paying for it (what carny folk call "marks"). And you can't have single payer universal health care in the United States without first destroying the existing private insurance industry. All this has been known for a long time, it's just that anybody who brought it up tended to be shouted down and/or ignored and/or dismissed in the media, blogs, internet forums, and social networking sites.
I'm left to ask what recourse we have in America against purposeful deceit by persons employed by the government. Or against journalists that enable that deceit.
The media has shown a repeated ability to bury, spin and distort stories that run contrary to the progressive narrative. As we have seen, the government bureaucracy itself is now partisan and whistleblowers are buried by the media and their fellow left wing bureaucrats.
"anybody who brought it up tended to be shouted down "
Yes, and the people Gruber fooled were the Democrats who are susceptible to this stuff.
In my law practice I've dealt with expert witnesses on various subjects. Virtually all of them were paid. The fact that the witness was paid always came out in testimony (if the lawyer was smart, he/she made sure that was part of the witness's direct testimony), and it never made any difference to the jury. It's not that Gruber was paid that bother's me; it's that he seems to have been touted, and touted himself, as a disinterested observer, when he wasn't.
The other thing is, the goal of an effective cross-examination or rebuttal of an expert in court is mostly to show that his opinion in this case is wrong or unreliable -- because the methodology or data is flawed or whatever. We now know that many of those things that Gruber was saying with all the great authority of an MIT professor were just wrong. Experience has rebutted him.
“Gruber said, “I guess it never occurred to me that the fact that I was doing technical modeling would matter.”
As someone well-steeped in the academic consulting conflict-of-interest regime, I'm calling bullshit. He hid it until he got caught.
"He said he has long supported the tax and that the administration opposed it when he wrote his column, so he was hardly bending his views to a government paymaster."
Doesn't matter. Disclosure is required whenever there might be the appearance of a conflict-of-interest. He's getting paid? He must disclose.
Jane Hamsher had a really good write up about this in Huffington Post yesterday.
Hamsher and her then-coblogger Marcy Wheeler were early skeptics of Gruber and the Cadillac tax.
At what point does what Gruber has done become academic misconduct for which he might be ejected from MIT?
"At what point does what Gruber has done become academic misconduct for which he might be ejected from MIT?"
-- At the point he stops being popular. That's how plagiarism and academic dishonesty works now.
Since his models were wrong, why is he considers an expert?
Experts are people who get it right or close to it.
The scam cover story is always that the crafty SOBs are just doing technical models that suddenly answer the questions man has always been puzzled by...it was HAL 9000 that did it.
Or against journalists that enable that deceit.
Cancel your subscription. Eventually they will run out of places to work.
When they send you a renewal solicitation, tape a penny to it and mail it back.
Jonathan Gruber, the health economist who pretty much wrote Obamacare, owns 8 parrots…..
There’s a joke in there somewhere.
If American voters are so "stupid", why does the Administration have to lie to us about...everything?
Period.
If Obama was willing to lie about this, it's almost enough to make one question how many other things he said were lies.
I, for one, am just glad I was never fooled.
Just as many fabrications and distortions and omissions can be involved in a "technical model". Including factors that have no basis in reality are are there to achieve a specific outcome is considered fraudulent.
Just as many fabrications and distortions and omissions can be involved in a "technical model". Including factors that have no basis in reality are are there to achieve a specific outcome is considered fraudulent.
Just as many fabrications and distortions and omissions can be involved in a "technical model". Including factors that have no basis in reality are are there to achieve a specific outcome is considered fraudulent.
Like...climate models!
Gruber wasn't wrong, he was lying. There is a difference.
As to Gruber, all the supposed "revelations" of the past week or so were anything but to most economic conservatives. They're just confirmation. Pretty much from day one anyone with half a brain knew that despite all the misdirections, obfuscations, theatrics, complexities, and vagaries that the various ACA architects and boosters in the media foisted on the general public, there was one inescapable reality that trumped everything else: You can't suddenly grant coverage to 30-40 million people without somebody somewhere paying for it
Exactly. Some people didn't understand this, but the opponents of Obamacare clearly did. They were correct, too. The rest of the public was lied to. They are all owed an apology, but they will never get it.
Democrats weren't fooled.
Deep-down they knew what Obama and Gruber were peddling was b*llshit, but they still wanted so desperately to believe...
Disclosure is required whenever there might be the appearance of a conflict-of-interest. He's getting paid? He must disclose.
Gruber is a piker compared to how business is done in Wisconsin. "Back up the Brinks truck and we'll talk".
I like the argument that Obama supporters are using which amounts to: the American people couldn't understand something so complex, so it was necessary to fudge the truth to get the right policy passed. Interesting how these same people felt about Bush "lying" regarding his justifications for invading Iraq.
Well, no.
What Dr. Gruber has stated in the 6 video clips we have seen is that he and various administration officials, including the President, and Democrat strategists deliberately told lies to hold the Democrat caucuses in Congress together long enough to vote this plan through on a party-line basis, and they would cope with the fallout later.
He does not claim that his models gave accurate results; that was irrelevant. They just wanted the legislation for other reasons.
Fred Drinkwater said...
Yeah, what's half a million dollars, more or less, between friends?
You are off by a factor of 10. After he built the ACA Law, his real payoff was 10-12 gigs with Blue States at $400K a pop. Doing the same cookie cutter study with different knobs set on his model.
Gross take $4M
Ultimately what troubled most critics of Obamacare (such as me) was that there was never a reasonable explanation for how it would achieve what it was supposed to. There's no explanation for where the money would come from to pay for all the subsidies, unless a very large number of people were going to see their own costs skyrocket. There was no explanation for how a highly subsidized system would not result in price increases that would swamp any subsidies in the long run. There was no explanation for how the employer mandates wouldn't result in loss of jobs or hours for employees.
There was instead a whole lot of wishful thinking, and when the time came to seriously consider and debate this ever-changing bill, the Congress decided to rush it through before Scott Brown could stop it. Has there ever been a case of a legislative action taken in a rush that did not prove to be a mistake?
Gruber's confirming what most of us already disliked about the ACA--both in the substance and the process of passing it. Secrecy, distortions, sloppiness, and condescension--every hallmark of the law's architects, and of course signed into law by the sort of person who could happily accept a Nobel Peace Prize for which he was nominated one week into his presidency.
Every sign was there. Now comes the long painful process of peeling the law apart, bit by bit.
Gruber has had a front row seat to all the stupidity peddled in the name of Biological Science, Climate Science, Social Science, Christian Science, etc.
All the con men have to do is talk in a Science lingo and act like the believe what they are peddling themselves. That alone fools 97% of the thinkers, 67% of the media, but none of the lawyers who have seen that trick done over and over by "Expert Witnesses." they have hired.
The problem with "succeeding" via bad or illegal means is it only encourages use of the bad or illegal means in the future.
MIT should take Gruber aside and say, "At some point, you've made enough money. That point is now. Goodbye."
Just like Princeton did to Krugman.
There's no explanation for
How you could require more things to be included, eliminate copays for other things, and pay for 30-40 million more people without prices going up. Way up.
That's kind of all you needed to know to know this was a sham from day 1.
"At the point he stops being popular. That's how plagiarism and academic dishonesty works now."
Word on the street is that there is another shoe about to drop in this business, one that constitutes a totally unforgivable act from which he simply cannot be rehabilitated. Apparently there is a picture out there somewhere of him wearing Matt Taylor's shirt.
Brando said:
There's no explanation for where the money would come from to pay for all the subsidies,...
I seem to recall that they planned to "save" (cut) $716B from Medicare and not fight a war in Iraq (that we already weren't gonna fight). That was the plan to "not add a cent" to the deficit.
They also took the student loan program from private lenders (except that one in North Dakota or somewhere) and they delayed the implementation until 2014, but started the taxation in 2012.
All the funny accounting tricks were a part of the "debate" Obama says we had. Some of us are not stupid and paid attention to the debate. Melissa Francis was scolded at CNBC for doing paying attention and doing the math.
" Readers are entitled to disclosure so they can decide if there is a conflict that would affect the credibility of the information...."
Not by Democrat rules, and doubly so when it might give away the whole game.
"garage mahal said...
Disclosure is required whenever there might be the appearance of a conflict-of-interest. He's getting paid? He must disclose.
Gruber is a piker compared to how business is done in Wisconsin. "Back up the Brinks truck and we'll talk"."
garage stumbles into a Gruber thread finally, but has nothing to say.
This is my shocked face :-0
garage stumbles into a Gruber thread finally, but has nothing to say.
Similar to a Benghazi thread. It's hard to tell what conservatives are even angry about.
Gruber is a piker compared to how business is done in Wisconsin. "Back up the Brinks truck and we'll talk".
A good topical cream and sitting on an inflatable donut should clear up that issue you've been dealing with since a couple Tuesdays ago, GM.
Smart take.
you should look up Jonah Goldberg's take on it.
Obama probably just read about him in the paper!
Actually, didn't Obama come out and say, through Josh Earnest, "This is the first I heard of it," and "Gruber was just some sort of consultant, and didn't write the bill."
Or words to that effect>?
"Ultimately what troubled most critics of Obamacare (such as me) was that there was never a reasonable explanation for how it would achieve what it was supposed to. There's no explanation for where the money would come from to pay for all the subsidies,"
You know, I once invested about $10,000 with a guy even though I didn't really understand his business plan. The general theory was good but I didm;t understand the cash flow.
I never did that again. I am not surprised at the mess, since I do know something about health care.
"garage mahal" will never know he was the mark in this scam because Gruber was right.
Meanwhile, the lies are still peddled without the least introspection.
"garage mahal" will never know he was the mark in this scam because Gruber was right.
Just out of "curiosity", why do you "always" put "quotation marks" on "words" that don't "require" them?
Why should conservatives be mad, Garage? It's the stupid people who fell for it. That is, not the conservatives, who saw through the con from day one. Only the liberals were fooled.
This is all you, libtard. You were the rubes all along. You're the fool. The clown. The mark. If you had a shred of insight and dignity, you and all your drooling ignorant liberal friends who signed onto the Hope train without doing the math first should be furious.
If garage wasn't paid for all his trolling in favor of the (badly mis-named) Affordable Care Act, then he really is the fool at the card table.
This is all you, libtard. You were the rubes all along. You're the fool. The clown.
There's a bit of the credulous pigeon in every good con man.
Even with all the clever, sneering sleazebags providing smoke and cover for the ACA trainwreck and control of Congress (but I repeat myself), the Dems STILL could only force passage through Congress with I-wont-come-in-you-mouth-baby promises, bribes, party-line votes and debate-free budget reconciliations. On Chrismas Eve.
Wait 'til this year's cancellations and rate increases start kicking in.
America, you've been #Grubered.
So the "Cadillac Tax" is not indexed to inflation, I thought I heard.
If that is the case, we will all have "Cadillac Plans," and privately funded health care will be destroyed, pit and the pendulum style. Without the messy necessity of convincing the stupid rubes!
The pernicious thing about being in politics and believing most people are stupid is you pretty much have to assume if the majority is "for" something then that something is, by definition, the stupid choice.
Likewise, if you have every reason to assume the majority will hate something, then there's good reason to believe it isn't something to be hated.
So the Intelligent Man is left with the options of trying to persuade the stupid, or to just lie to them.
Practically speaking, the "lie" option makes much more sense, because stupid people are stupid and will shun intelligent persuasion. Also, it's more fun.
garage: "Similar to a Benghazi thread. It's hard to tell what conservatives are even angry about."
LOL
Even when Gruber spells it out, garage is still too stupid to take note.
When it comes to garage and his ilk, we have to admit, Gruber was spot on.
Well, there's no controlling legal authority over technical modeling. That's the real problem.
According to the Hopkins researchers, about 16 percent of all plans could be affected by the excise tax when it takes effect in 2018. And some 75 percent of plans would be affected a decade later because of inflation of the annual premium limits.
Remember when Obama told us that the Cadillac tax of 40% of every excess dollar would apply to 75% of health plans?
And garage mahal doesn't understand why people are angry.
So the "Cadillac Tax" is not indexed to inflation...
If that is the case, we will all have "Cadillac Plans,"
It is the case, and one of the Gruber videos brags about that particular deception (i.e. the Rube's think it's only for a few, high-end plans).
Sorry, the above was from Health Policy Briefs
If garage wasn't paid for all his trolling in favor of the (badly mis-named) Affordable Care Act, then he really is the fool at the card table.
Okay. Back on topic, tell me why I'm supposed to be outraged about Gruber. I bet you don't even know, do you?
So the Intelligent Man is left with the options of trying to persuade the stupid, or to just lie to them. - Mark
Or the "intelligent man" could be wrong, and without honest debate, never discover it because the "intelligent man" is at heart, anti-democratic.
Or is lying to people "what democracy looks like"?
furious_a said...
Even with all the clever, sneering sleazebags providing smoke and cover for the ACA trainwreck and control of Congress (but I repeat myself), the Dems STILL could only force passage through Congress with I-wont-come-in-you-mouth-baby promises, bribes, party-line votes and debate-free budget reconciliations.
Add the Obama con of the Pro-Life Dem House members led by Bart Stupak who bought the Obama Executive Order promise that was replaced by the HHS abortion regulations.
I bet the reason garage is outraged at Gruber is because he said out loud that which was supposed to be only communicated via a wink or a nod at most.
That liberalism is at heart anti-democratic is no surprise to garage. Other than that, Gruber just said out loud what lefties believe, and have been telling us over and over again for years. They know what's best for everybody!
This is all you, libtard. You were the rubes all along. You're the fool. The clown. The mark.
All these stunning revelations are coming out on a law that was passed 4 yrs ago? YOU SHOULD HAVE READ THE BILL!
technical modeling
Newspeak for "lying for profit".
Well if you live and work in academic circles on the banks of the River Charles, putting one over on the rubes in the heartland is just what you do. Nothing to see here. Business as usual, so there can't be a conflict of interest.
The Intelligent Man is never wrong. Just ask garage mahal.
"garage mahal" still cannot understand that he was the target of the lies that were offered to pass ObamaCare. ObamaCare was meant to force everybody into government insurance. Insurance, of course, is notabout health care. Insurance is about who pays.
And the problem with health care is inflation. Inflation is caused by increasing demand because supply is sticky in the short- and middle-term timeframes. Increasing demand happens because the consumers are separated from the costs of theirbehaviors. Substituting the government as middleman for private insurance companies as middlemen does nothing to change this dynamic.
Therefore, we will see rationing and Death Panels.
All of this was obvious years ago and is a significant cause of dissatisfaction with ObamaCare. Now Gruber has laid bare all the lies Liberals like "garage mahal" denied. I am not mad at Gruber for making clear the stupidity of Liberals who bought the lies. I am angry that the collapse of the U.S. fiscal situationis closer to collapse than it was 6 years ago.
All these stunning revelations are coming out on a law that was passed 4 yrs ago? YOU SHOULD HAVE READ THE BILL!
I did. I made plenty of comments at that time about aspects of the bill that clearly are targeted at future healthcare rationing by age (something Zeke Emanuel owned up to not long ago when he advocated everyone dying by age 75) and I also asserted that people who had insurance would be paying more money for worse coverage, something that has also come to pass.
I have a distinct recollection of you and others pooh-poohing what I wrote back then. Shouldn't you have read the bill before you commented in its defense?
For that matter, wasn't it incumbent on the Democrats who voted for it to have read the bill? Half of the senators who voted for it have either been defeated or resigned to avoid defeat. Had Gruber's videos surfaced just two weeks earlier I think you could have added Warner and Shaheen to the list of losers, and perhaps Franken as well. I trust the three of them are breathing a huge sigh of relief.
"garage mahal said...
All these stunning revelations are coming out on a law that was passed 4 yrs ago? YOU SHOULD HAVE READ THE BILL!"
There is little in ObamaCare that wasn't known and warned about Shortbus. So this is bullshit. Gruber has just confirmed most of it. Which is why you stay mute or puke out this crap.
Living in the Boston area, Gruber could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had just listened to Howie Carr's show and heard the oft repeated maxim of the corrupt: "Never write if you can speak, never speak when you can nod, never nod when you can wink."
"All these stunning revelations are coming out on a law that was passed 4 yrs ago? YOU SHOULD HAVE READ THE BILL!"
Once again, garage startles with the level of his ignorance. Much of what we see now are regulations written AFTER the bill passed FOUR YEARS AGO !
Dope.
All these stunning revelations are coming out on a law that was passed 4 yrs ago? YOU SHOULD HAVE READ THE BILL!
We did, shithead. That's why we opposed it. Because all along we knew that it would do just what Grube Oldberg said it would. There is nothing Gruber said that surprised us about the bill. The only thing different about Gruber is that unlike the other supporters, he's being honest about what it does.
It was you libtards who supported it all along. YOU should have read the damned bill.
By the way, how'd that election go for you, douchenozzle?
There is little in ObamaCare that wasn't known and warned about Shortbu
Except everything you guys are tripping out about at the moment.
Ex. "They literally meant only states that setup their own exchange would get federal subsidies!" Nobody really believes this nonsense, the bill makes no sense that way, and there weren't any conservatives writing about it when the bill was being debated for almost two years that I remember. Do you?
Again I don't know what you're beef with Gruber is. How were you're delicate feelings bruised? You still haven't said. What.
Indexing the Cadillac Tax sounds like a nice little stand-alone bill to send to the President.
the bill makes no sense that way you forgot the "NOW..."
I am sorry, is the SCOTUS job to decide if a bill makes sense? No, the Congress decides that, and the Congress decided to try to force states to co-operate with threats. It was a stupid calculation, but it is the "law of the land" garage, "the law of the land."
Garage doesn't understand. Not a surprise. He thought that shutting down the legislature in Wisconsin through a mini putsch was "what democracy looks like."
I did not have my feelings hurt by Gruber. His plan is hurting Americans' wallets, not their feelings.
I am offended on your behalf that he called you, "garage mahal", one of the dupes in his plan, stupid. Just because Gruber was, and is, correct does not make it less offensive that he called you, accurately, stupid.
The key to make Obamacare work is to determine the right balance of work-age immigrants (i.e. taxable assets) and planned parenthood (i.e. tax deductible assets and stem cells harvests). The abortion of around 2 million Americans annually may not be sufficient to control costs of providing marginally universal "free" medical care.
Finally, to the person who questioned "mother" Althouse's sage advice, I would like to revise my opinion. Althouse knows the unambiguous nature and consequence of elective abortion and does not attempt to hide behind a faith-based exemption under the First Amendment (i.e. Roe vs Wade). Yet, she still is capable of reconciling the choice and willful termination of a wholly innocent human life when it is uniquely vulnerable. Strict scrutiny of her wisdom and advice is warranted. I would suggest the same of anyone who rationalizes the "choice" more than once and does not express remorse for that mortal mistake.
The bill made sense, as written, when it unconstitutionally threatened 100% of Medicaid funding to states that did not create state-run exchanges. Once states were confirmed to be independent political entities under our federal system, that cannot be wholly subverted by the power of the purse, states were no longer forced to create an exchange.
And with that stroke the subsidies, the tax penalties and indeed the entire system are threatened and will likely collapse because the whole scheme depended on subterfuge, lies and dupes like "garage mahal" for political support.
n.n.:
Immigrants with a choice will suck resources from the system and work under the table. Why would they accept the burden of a high tax regime like the U.S. sysytem when they have already demonstrated a willingness to cheat U.S. laws?
His plan is hurting Americans' wallets, not their feelings.
You grunt about a lot of stuff you really don't know anything about. It tows the party line every single time. You're interests and the interests of billionaires align perfectly. Congrats, Birkel Dumb Feather.
(I'm just assuming you have zero empirical evidence to back any of your claims as per usual.)
garage the wind-up toy: "Nobody really believes this nonsense,......"
LOL
Except the architects of it..and anyone else with a brain.
Our favorite martian, li'l Jonathan Gruber in January of 2012: "What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this."
But that's ok.
Garage is here to tell us that what is clearly written into the law and what is clearly discussed by obamacare's architects are not really there.
At all.
This is quintessentially what being a leftist is all about. The ability to tell yourself that what is clearly true is false and that which is clearly false is true.
garage: "You grunt about a lot of stuff you really don't know anything about."
LOL
Magnificent.
garage: "Congrats, Birkel Dumb Feather."
LOL
We'll add that little item to the list of garage's racist utterings (which includes "Blacky's".
Birkel: "And with that stroke the subsidies, the tax penalties and indeed the entire system are threatened and will likely collapse because the whole scheme depended on subterfuge, lies and dupes like "garage mahal" for political support."
What's most telling is that it was possible for garage and dummies like him to pretend what was being said about obamacare was all a bunch of lies.
But now, when confronted with the undeniable reality of the lies, he doubles down consciously.
He chooses to now be a witting dupe on top of years of unwitting dupe-ness.
Again, the perfect leftist drone.
It is the Democrats who should have read the bill. They are the ones - the only ones - who voted for it!
"was that there was never a reasonable explanation for how it would achieve what it was supposed to. There's no explanation for where the money would come from to pay for all the subsidies..."
WTF? Remember how it was supposed to be horrible that the legislation had so many pages of detail? As it turns out, those pages do contain explanations for these questions. Duh.
garage, as a drone, is always quite pleased when his political betters are rewarded handsomely ($6M and counting for Gruber) at the expense of the little stupid people like himself.
garage is not a dupe, he knew perfectly well that the stuff he was defending was based on a pack of lies. It was clear to anyone who paid attention at all. Lefties don't believe in democracy, they don't believe the people should have any say. Democracy is like a bus to them, they get off it when it reaches their stop. It used to be "question authority" now it is "don't question authority." It's how they roll.
"garage mahal said...
There is little in ObamaCare that wasn't known and warned about Shortbu
Except everything you guys are tripping out about at the moment."
You are a moron.
"garage mahal said...Ex. "They literally meant only states that setup their own exchange would get federal subsidies!" Nobody really believes this nonsense, the bill makes no sense that way, and there weren't any conservatives writing about it when the bill was being debated for almost two years that I remember. Do you? "
LOL. It's plain English, and Gruber, and others, have admitted they wrote it that way to compel states to build exchanges. It failed. And now the chickens have come home to roost.
"garage mahal said...Again I don't know what you're beef with Gruber is. How were you're delicate feelings bruised? You still haven't said. What."
My problem with Gruber is that he gladly went along with this ruse...worse yet, he actually allowed the Democrats to use him as an "independent expert" when he wasn't by anyone's definition. He was paid to help craft the bill. He was grading his own work. He crafts the bill, and then allows himself to be an independent expert to say how awesome it is. That was clear in Althouse's post, it's clear to even the fucking NYT, but not you.
You are pathetic.
"Nobody really believes this nonsense, the bill makes no sense that way, "
Gruber believes it. He says so in two videos.
How ObamaCare Turned Insurers Into Big Gov't Lovers
garage isn't a dupe. He is pushing the lie he needs to push right now. He doesn't believe what he is writing. He couldn't be that stupid. The truth ofr his is what it needs to be to get what he wants, full stop.
I was tangentially involved in a lawsuit where the one side claimed that he had to make the promises that he did because that was the only way to get the other person to do what he wanted. Or that is what his claim boiled down to. I said at the time it would be like telling small claims court that you had to promise to pay the guy to mow your lawn or he wouldn't have done it so you shouldn't have to pay because you never meant it!
This is democracy to a liberal.
SEAN DAVIS: It’s Time For Leftist Gruber Truthers To Give It A Rest. “Gruber was an Obamacare architect who helped draft the law. This is a fact regardless of whether it’s currently convenient for the Left.” Nonsense. Things that are inconvenient for the left aren’t “facts.” They’re things “Republicans claim.”
This is from Instapundit. Does he perfectly capture garage or what?
Gruber sure was right about garage!
'Plausible believability' is all garage needs to support his neo-fascistic worldview. Subconsciously, he knows he is stupid and incapable of critical thinking, so he grabs hold of any face-saving nonsense to protect himself from facing the truth.
Pitiful he is.
Is there anyone posting here who is an MIT professor who (among many other accomplishments) created previously non-existent modeling that assesses the effects of changes to our healthcare system? In a market, meritocratic economy this should be worth a lot more than six million dollars.
Reading these comments makes me think that you folks believe you know more about healthcare policy than this guy. And, yet you bristle when you're called stupid. Interesting, isn't it?
This is from Instapundit. Does he perfectly capture garage or what?
Aw man. I was hoping for something original from you as to why I'm supposed to be outraged bu #GRUBER. Your response is sloppy seconds from Instapundit?
#GRUBER was the architect of R̶o̶m̶n̶e̶y̶C̶a̶r̶e̶. That's what this wasn't all about. tags: rubes, marks, death panels
"Yesterday, Bret Baier tweeted this old 2010 column from Jane Hamsher of the very progressive Fire Dog Lake blog. Despite being leftist as all get out, Hamsher was a fierce critic of Obamacare.
Her column describes how the Administration deployed Jon Gruber, presenting him as a neutral, objective third-party analyst of Obamacare, without disclosing he was in fact on their payroll -- and how the liberal media took his remarks and repeated them hundreds of times, until it seemed like there was a huge consensus on Gruber's plan."
What?
PBandJ wants us all to submit to the will of MIT professors. Fuck you, you lemming.
Meanwhile "garage mahal" makes anti-Native American insults.
Let your Fascist Freak Flags Fly, you nasty little shits.
Meanwhile, rates are up, deductibles are up, coverage is down, Zeke things we should die by 75 and the predicted parade of horribles is marching behind the drum leader, President Obama.
Passage by Cohn from May 21, 2012:
"I'll have more to say about Massachusetts and, in particular, the cost control efforts later in the week. But for now I'll leave you with the verdict of Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist who was a key architect of both Romneycare and Obamacare[.]"
What? no way!
And, yet you bristle when you're called stupid. Interesting, isn't it?
We don't bristle so much as call attention to it, on account of it drives turnout. Had this come out three weeks earlier, it would have been more than a wave, it would have been a wipeout.
It has been an interesting week of hearing what liberals really think of voters in general, and democracy.
"PBandJ wants us all to submit to the will of MIT professors. Fuck you, you lemming."
Is Birkel a sock puppet?
Or, does this sort of "thinking" really represent con "logic?"
I thought the lock-step collective liberal democrats hated insurance companies - what with their evil profits.
Now that the entire big corporate enterprise is being propped up by tax payers, these same liberals are cool with it?
Wow. Just wow.
So liberals LIKE crony capitalism. Got it.
The Democrats conspired to develop a convincing fraud. They lied, they presented false testimony, they obscured the basic facts. Purposeful, malicious and self serving....
Tim,
Almost everybody in the world is more stupid than this guy, when the economics of healthcare are considered.
I guess we're supposed to be angry when he points that out. But, I'm not. I have a life where that is not dedicated to studying the economics of our health care system. It doesn't threaten me to know what I don't know. In fact, I'd say it makes me smarter.
Aw man. I was hoping for something original from you as to why I'm supposed to be outraged bu [sic] #GRUBER.
You misunderstand me, probably deliberately. I don't freaking care whether you're outraged. People who foolishly thought that the Democrats were looking out for the interests of the "little guy" are outraged. That was enough for 2014, and probably for decades to come.
I don't freaking care whether you're outraged. People who foolishly thought that the Democrats were looking out for the interests of the "little guy" are outraged. That was enough for 2014, and probably for decades to come.
I have never have been outraged. You may have misunderstood me. I'm asking why are you outraged? You don't know.
@April Apple, point of information. Without crony capitalism there is no Democrat party. Period. It is the party of the 0.01% at the top and the 30% at the bottom. If you're in between those limits you screw yourself every time you vote for a Democrat.
Here in Virginia that apparently includes dog catcher.
" In fact, I'd say it makes me smarter."
Liberalism is all about unearned self-esteem boosts, at least this guy admits it.
"Almost everybody in the world is more stupid than this guy, when the economics of healthcare are considered."
And he used that brilliance, by his own admission, to pull the wool over people's eyes.
As an aside, he doesn't seem to be smart enough to keep his big mouth shut, does he?
He couldn't resist letting those in the roon know that he was brillianyt and in the know.
The text of the Affordable Care Act repeatedly states that federal subsidies may only flow to those who purchase their plans from an exchange “established by the State” as opposed to one established by the federal government.
If the law really "makes no sense" with this language, it makes one wonder why it appears so many times...
Maybe #Gruber isn't as smart as he thinks he is.... Naaah!
Point of order, garage. You are trying to move the goal posts. I'm not outraged by Gruber's revelations. Remember that I read the d*mn*d bill. Plus I'm a mathematician; I did the elementary math. I knew they were lying back then, and I know they're lying now when Democrats and media types imply that Gruber had no hand in drafting the legislation (so Democrats paid him $400K and he did nothing for it?).
I think the unions will be outraged when they discover that all their healthcare plans are labeled "Cadillac plans" and taxed extra. But that's up the union workers. The mine workers of Appalachia are already in full revolt; other union rank and file will follow them.
garage: "I have never have been outraged."
LOL
The guy proclaiming the coming "full Walker dictatorship" is positively, absolutely never outraged.
Perfect.
Tim,
Presumably you're going to have a bigger impact on the world than Confucius and Socrates.
You cons are funny.
"
Practically speaking, the "lie" option makes much more sense, because stupid people are stupid and will shun intelligent persuasion. Also, it's more fun."
Yeah, and the reallly fun part is chortling at academic (smart people) conferences afterwards about how you put one over on the rubes and dummies, who never saw it coming.
So its especially sweet that Gruber not being able to keep his mouth shut afterwards has the Dem leadership lying YET AGAIN to deny what Gruber actually 'fessed up to.
Keep it coming pBand, your stuff is gold.
O.M.
He used data to improve health care. As this thread shows many folks aren't capable of understanding data and facts and knowledge. Why blame him for this?
Also, I think it's nice to see folks acknowledge that their accomplishments, even if doing so requires identifying the gap between their capabilities and those of less knowledgeable folks. Facts are facts. Some folks know more about particular stuff. So what?
tim in vermont: "If the law really "makes no sense" with this language, it makes one wonder why it appears so many times.."
It's even worse than that.
At one point in the negotiations there was language in the bill to include subsidies for folks getting their plan thru the federal exchange and the dems specifically removed that language!!
The dems specifically removed it.
Because they are geniuses.
You. Can't. Make. This. Stuff. Up.
PB&J:
That's like saying a con man is smarter than his marks.
So what?
So liberals LIKE crony capitalism. Got it.
Of course leftists like crony capitalism, in fact, their moral relativism makes it easy for them. It only matters whose cronies and who is wielding the power.
Top men like Gruber... Top. Men.
He used data to improve health care. As this thread shows many folks aren't capable of understanding data and facts and knowledge.
Holy shit, that isn't all and you know it. Frankly, I'm tired of having my intelligence insulted by statements of this kind.
PB&J: "He used data to improve health care."
So you are in the "okay okay Gruber was an obamacare architect" lefty camp as opposed to the "Jonathan Gruber?!! Never heard of him" lefty camp, correct?
Chef,
The dude is a lot smarter than you (and me) where health care is concerned.
It doesn't make him a con man.
Don't be afraid of knowledge.
"He used data to improve health care."
That is very much in dispute. In my own personal world, I've seen what the medical device tax is doing to development of new technology. As to the rest of your post, you're defending very boorish behavior.
PB&J: " As this thread shows many folks aren't capable of understanding data and facts and knowledge."
I don't think you should be insulting garage like that. After all, he is on your side and just because he is denying the what has been made obvious doesn't (necessarily) mean he doesn't understand data and facts and knowledge.
He doesn't of course, but not just because of what he's posted on this thread.
At least lefties seem to be abandoning the tack that #Gruber was
just some guy in the neighborhood.
PB&J: "It doesn't make him a con man."
LOL
The con man has been upfront about the con.
You're welcome.
What is really funny is that #Gruber is not saying anything now that conservatives weren't saying Democrats believed then. But that makes us stupid.
Comedy gold.
Drago,
He's a number cruncher for Obama and Romney.
He's not an architect as much as a modeler of potential changes. Of course, economic modeling is (to put it euphemistically) a tricky business. Even so, you've got to go with the numbers--the data. Expertise and a life spent in a particular field is better than folks who blabber.
Creating and unnecessarily complex law to mask its true purposes, effects, and costs, as he has admitted he has done, makes him a con man.
Not being good at math.
"not an architect"
Ha ha ha ha! You made a mistake, first you told us you believed we were all stupid, then you told us a transparent lie. To be effective at lying like that, it really helps not to tell us you think we are stupid.
I guess you think we are stupid for not believing the lie that you only told because you believe we are stupid. And I am sure you have not remotely begun.
PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
Chef,
The dude is a lot smarter than you (and me) where health care is concerned.
It doesn't make him a con man.
No his public statements acknowledging the lies used on the stupid people (who are the ones who believed said lies and continue to support this abomination-let that sink in)
Don't be afraid of knowledge.
You're the one who relies on an appeal to authority rather than his/her own thought processes.
"If you like your plan you can know that I didn't know Gruber."
You're the one who relies on an appeal to authority rather than his/her own thought processes
He doesn't even get what you are saying. It is like liberals want to snuff the enlightenment.
"Creating and unnecessarily complex law to mask its true purposes, effects, and costs, as he has admitted he has done, makes him a con man."
Does this comment make you feel smart? If only you were in charge, then all would be well. Those so-called experts should listen to you.
I know it's impossible for many of you cons to see the reality-based the limitations of your knowledge and capabilities.
Delusion is as delusion does.
Assuming the S.Ct. follows the clear language of the law and strikes down subsidies in states that don't have their own exchanges, won't those states be under enormous pressure to start up their own exchanges? If so does it really matter much how the Court rules?
"You're the one who relies on an appeal to authority rather than his/her own thought processes"
Everyone should rely on data and economic research rather than their own "thought processes."
I don't understand why you cons push back against this.
Odd.
Assuming the S.Ct. follows the clear language of the law and strikes down subsidies in states that don't have their own exchanges, won't those states be under enormous pressure to start up their own exchanges?
Yes, it could increase pressure to do that. It could also increase pressure on GOP representatives, who ran against Obamacare among other things, to gut Obamacare. It should be noted that nationwide, Obamacare was never popular with a majority of the American people. Given the results of November 4, where do YOU think the most pressure will be applied?
We have seen Grubergate before in Climategate.
We heard there what the people pushing policies really thought about the science. It was exactly what conservatives thought they thought. Conservatives could have written those emails. There were zero surprises in there to anybody who followed the stories and applied any critical thinking.
Same thing with #Gruber. This is how the left works.
"At least lefties seem to be abandoning the tack that #Gruber was
just some guy in the neighborhood."
In that picture, Obama is texting the Secret Service: "Who the hell is this guy?"
Assuming the S.Ct. follows the clear language of the law and strikes down subsidies in states that don't have their own exchanges, won't those states be under enormous pressure to start up their own exchanges?
LOL!!!!!! #GRUBER #CLIMATEGATE #GRUBER #GUNS
"I know it's impossible for many of you cons to see the reality-based the limitations of your knowledge and capabilities.
Delusion is as delusion does. "
Says the guy who thinks CO2 is going to kill us all.
Definitely Gruber.
Sorry PJ, but if somehow you showed that my comment was untrue, I didn't see it.
There are limits to econometric models too. They are based on assumptions and value judgments. Value judgments are what democracies make at the ballot box. Lying about value judgments is fundamentally anti-democratic.
But you have already made clear that you don't believe in little 'd' democracy.
It is fascinating to watch OFA social media commenters earn their daily bread, though I'm baffled as to who they ever influence. Realistically, this isn't a hang for for the LIV, and so the efforts of the stooges are just so much wind from a monkey's backside. It is entertaining, though.
PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
Eh, never mind, it's a waste of electrons (you do know what those are, without consulting J.J. Thomson I hope) to respond to a troll of this caliber. Garage mahal makes more sense.
(!!!!)
"Assuming the S.Ct. follows the clear language of the law and strikes down subsidies in states that don't have their own exchanges, won't those states be under enormous pressure to start up their own exchanges?"
Congress needs to have a free market fix ready to go. I certainly don't have confidence they won't fuck it up.
If the SCOTUS strikes it down, 2/3 of Senators are going to be under a lot of pressure to open the law up for revision. Then it will be Katy bar the door.
Michael,
I'm a bad lib where climate change is concerned.
With one exception, I don't see how it makes any sense for us to limit CO2 when other, less developed countries will not join us.
The one exception is that there may be a strategic benefit to stockpiling our fossil fuels while the rest of the world is running theirs dry. Looking at the long game, our resources could be massively more valuable if we wait for a time of scarcity, unlike now.
Laurence O'donnell:"What Gruber did was tell the truth"
PJ thinks that if you push a value judgment into a fancy enough model, it becomes truth.
It's turtles all the way down, PJ, just more turtles.
Economic activity occurs at local and regional levels. Reform through delegation and deferment at the federal level should have been a simple task to dictate. At the federal level, trillion dollar deficits that devalue capital and labor also does not seem to trigger their conscience. I wonder why they needed expert aid. Was it another appeal to authority to reduce personal burdens and dissonance?
Perhaps the next president will truly reform the system. He will not resort to devaluing capital and labor. He will not delegate and defer responsibility to someone else. He will not promote planned parenthood rituals, and, in fact, will discourage the trivial termination of human life, in order to reduce and simply the problem set.
Anyway, more money, less resources, more taxable assets, less tax deductions (i.e. children), and they still can't get it right. Obamacare reminds me of the multi-trillion dollar welfare economy that leaves Americans indigent, homeless, and unidentified. Talk about disparate outcome.
Sigh.
Gruber makes millions and I get a 40% increase in premiums this coming year for the same policy.
Yeah, I know darn well who is paying for all that additional coverage.
Garage tell me again why I should not be outraged. Pbandj tell me again how I don't understand healthcare as well as Gruber et al.
Assholes like garage and pbandj should have the decency to just keep there traps shut and not dance on the rest of us who are dealing with the real challenges this idiotic law handed us.
PB&J: "Everyone should rely on data and economic research rather than their own "thought processes."
LOL
And when the lawsuits requiring the lefties to provide their data publicly is lost (by the lefties), it's okey dokey to simply "lose" the data. (thank you East Anglia CRU)
Yep.
'cuz "science" requires us to hide the raw data, then to "lose" it.
Gee, it's almost like everything PB&J is saying is itself a lie.
I wonder if PB&J was part of the non-existent (we know that now as well) IRS "effort" to locate all those "missing" emails.
Lot's of stuff seems to get hidden/lost with the left these days.
Curious, no?
The "dude" Gruber wrote his Phd thesis in 1992 espousing the elimination of the link between one's job and health insurance. Then he spent the subsequent 20 or so years working toward that goal. What a coincidence that his models supported his college thesis.
If we as citizens MUST rely on "experts" to do our thinking for us, as some fucking retards on this thread assert, how about the POTUS? Or is he an expert on immigration?
AJ Lynch said...
The "dude" Gruber wrote his Phd thesis in 1992 espousing the elimination of the link between one's job and health insurance. Then he spent the subsequent 20 or so years working toward that goal. What a coincidence that his models supported his college thesis.
I consider myself to be conservative on some things, and I agree there should be a de-coupling of health insurance from employment. It's interesting to note that employer paid health insurance benefits (nontaxed income) is a relic of price controls in the Truman administration.
You folks who don't worth with facts should listen to folks who do work with facts even when they're only telling the facts to the other folks in their private meetings and telling the rest of the folks something different from what they're telling the folks in the meetings. That way you folks can get manipulated by folks who can deal with facts instead of trying to grapple with facts yourselves, which is something you folks can't do. That's all, folks.
Just a quick heads up for the ignoramus who keeps making an appeal to authority.
A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct
This is an appeal to authority. Why are appeals to authority a fallacy?
while authorities can be correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.
But that's ok because I'm ignorant of the subject and I'll just blindly accept whatever Gruber and Obama tell me, because they are so much smarter than me!
It's guys like this, who think like this, who mock the religious, because they project their own desire not to think for themselves onto the religious. Because they are willing to be spoon fed from those in authority, they assume everyone else is willing to be spoon fed as well.
And there are a lot of people out there just like PB&J. This is why the Grubers of the world can get away with their lies and deceptions. Because authority.
This is also a clever tactic used by Democrats. How many times have we heard Obama state "95% of experts agree with me on this." whatever the subject might be.
He's speaking to PB&J. Who hears that and thinks, "Well, they must be right, they are the experts."
Although I doubt he actually thinks that much. He's been so conditioned at this point, that there probably isn't much of a thought process. Just a good feeling that warms him up and gives him goose bumps.
I'm mystified by why Gruber comes in for such hate and character contempt from the right. (The left I can understand, since he outed their perfidy.)
1. As I understand it -- I can't be bothered to watch all the videos, having a life -- he said lies had to be told to the voters to pass Obamacare, and that the lies would work because voters were short-sighted and would buy a pig in a poke as long as they were promised a Free Lunch. So far as I know, both statements were proved amply true by events. So the guy was making accurate statements. They don't even seem unlike statements made by conservatives themselves in the past few years, e.g. that Obamacare was sold by lies because there was no other way to get it done, and ("47 percent") voters were morons to put Democrats in charge like that. So why hate on Gruber for saying the same accurate things?
2. He said these things out loud where they could be recorded, instead of secretly, or privately to only people who could be trusted not to repeat them. In this he differed from most of the other people involved in Obamacare. But...in a good way as far as conservatives are concerned, no? He was open about what they were doing, in a way that Pelosi, Reid and Obama, to name three, were not. Gruber is essentially a whistleblower. (Not a willing whistleblower, of course, but I don't see that his motivation -- or lack of it -- should detract from the value of his actions.)
3. He supported Obamacare. Well, OK, that's stupid. But of course the President, hundreds of lawmakers, thousand of business executives, well-informed donors and lobbyists did, too, even if you discount all the millions of voters because they were dumb and ignorant (vide supra). What makes Gruber worse than any of them -- because he admitted what was going on? I mean, at least the guy is acting from long-held convictions -- apparently he's been a believer in some kind of socialized medicine for his entire adult career. At least he wasn't a cynical bandwagoneer, like the ex-Senator from Nebraska and the soon to be ex-Senator from Louisiana. He may be mistaken -- in fact, I'm certain he is -- but why is he evil? He had longstanding heartfelt convictions, and he acted openly on them. (I discount the BS about disclosure in the post above: the rules on disclosure of interest are (1) so fucking Byzantine only a lawyer could keep up with them, and (2) utterly useless, since nobody really knows what disclosure means -- it's like that curlicue fine print that legal voices read at the speed of a champion auctioneer at the end of TV ads, or like eight paragraphs of 8pt shrinkwrap license terms. Gibble gabble.)
4. Most importantly, he wasn't responsible for Obamacare. I really think that needs to be borne in mind. He advised the government to do this and that, and how to do it -- but it was your duly elected Representatives and Senators who actually did it, and the President who signed off on it and implemented it. Gruber was representing a narrow and bookish perspective. It's not in his job description to balance his theories against the practical effects on millions of people. That's the job of Congress. They're the judge and jury charged with balancing the ideas of expert witnesses for the prosecution against their (supposed) practical understanding of what their constituents really want, what the law and Constitution allow, and what standards there might be for how law gets made.
So what's Gruber done? He's certainly a political opponent, so his influence should be briskly countered, his ideas picked apart, his errors broadcast, etc. But why the condemnation of his character in addition to his ideas. Is it no longer possible to separate the two, these days? You are how you vote? Gah.
When the not 100% wrong host pimps, as it werem't or were (if you be law prof creddypacdunfuck)then yo yo.
Bobber,
"I'm left to ask what recourse we have in America against purposeful deceit by persons employed by the government"
Tar and feathers? It's a grand old American tradition!
Brando,
"Has there ever been a case of a legislative action taken in a rush that did not prove to be a mistake?"
That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?
PBJ,
I sure as hell do know more about health care policy than this pathetic MIT professor, and the record shows it.
PBJ,
"If only you were in charge, then all would be well."
If only you could recognize how true that statement was.
Because if I were in charge, I would know enough (in the Hayekian sense) to know I didn't now enough to centrally-manage the health care sector, so I wouldn't have tried.
When ACA was passed, at a small forum, my congresswoman told us that ACA would be revenue neutral despite covering millions of previously uninsured. I asked her how that could be. Her answer to me was: "President Obama told me so."
I was perplexed.
… and planned parenthood (i.e. tax deductible assets and stem cells harvests). The abortion of around 2 million Americans annually…
It is a prevalent but unfortunate not to speak of false myth that abortions are a (the) source of embryonic stem cells used in biomedical research. The most basic reason why this flat isn't true is because embryonic stem cell research requires embryonic stem cells, which in turn requires embryos — and what is aborted in abortions are fetuses — which are far, far beyond the embryo stage by the time an abortion per se is contemplated. As a result abortions are not a source for embryonic stem cells used in research.
Another important consideration in this regard is that there is no need to “harvest” stem cells per se – at least in the sense of acquiring any large number of cells and/or on a continuing basis, in order to conduct embryonic stem cell research. This is a consequence of the fact that “lines” (lineages) of stem cells are self-perpetuating, self reproducing, once a few representative cells have been acquired (teased out of an embryo). Moreover, only a relative few genetically distinct lines of stem cells are needed in order to conduct the necessary research in how to control this potent tool facing us of stem cells employed in medicine.
Nonetheless, it is necessary to found a new embryonic stem cell lineage every now and then for research purposes, due to deficiencies of one sort or another in existing lines. The source for “founding” stem cells used in that situation is not abortion but in vitro fertilization services provided to otherwise infertile couples — so they can have babies, not kill them! There are always too many embryos created in vitro fertilization work, which are eventually discarded once a couple has achieved their goal of having x many children. Saving a few stem cells from an otherwise doomed embryo, to help preserve human lives in the future, is not an ignoble purpose in that circumstance!
But anyway, regardless of the merits of stem cell research (and I think they're huge), it has nothing to do with abortion. Zero, zilch. Please make note of that.
PBandJ said:
"It doesn't threaten me to not know what I don't know."
Yes that is exactly what they are counting on and why you are the perfect mark for their game.
"I seem to recall that they planned to "save" (cut) $716B from Medicare and not fight a war in Iraq (that we already weren't gonna fight). That was the plan to "not add a cent" to the deficit."
That, and the penalties for the individual mandate and employer mandate (plus Cadillac taxes and a Medicare tax added on to some home sales) was supposed to be enough to pay for a pretty broad subsidy scheme (both subsidies for individuals, as well as subsidies for insurers who underpriced their premiums). The problem though is many of these haven't been implemented or were delayed, and aren't likely to be fully implemented (like the Medicare reimbursement cuts) due to political pressure. Nor are they likely to pull in enough money to cover the costs--the individual mandate, for example, is easy to get around by having less withheld from your paychecks, and the sort of people who would be affected by it (higher earners who chose not to get insurance) are smart enough to figure that out.
Had they simply come out and said that payroll taxes would be increased by one percent and that the money raised from it would go into a subsidy pool, then we could debate whether the subsidies would be implemented in a way that would help, and debate whether the tax hike would be fair or not have negative consequences, but at least the scheme would make some sort of internal sense. But like the rest of the ACA, the funding provisions are convoluted and wishful, clearly conceived by arrogant morons who never should have been allowed near pen and paper, let alone elected to high office.
Baghdad Garage.
There really is no other way to say it about this stupid, lying fat fuck.
One of the interesting things about this Gruber episode is that it is finally being picked up by the media, but not necessarily for the right reasons.
Gruber gives them a scapegoat other than Obama and his inner circle. They'll shoehorn this into a narrative that they're familiar with and love to peddle: formerly altruistic man with good intentions channels his inner Republican to bilk government out of millions of dollars.
In this scenario, they can infer that Obama is really an unsuspecting victim, not the co-conspirator that he is.
Another reason they are forced to carry this story is that carrying water for the Obama admin hasn't done much for ratings lately.
fbsakamoto said..."When ACA was passed, at a small forum, my congresswoman told us that ACA would be revenue neutral despite covering millions of previously uninsured. I asked her how that could be. Her answer to me was: "President Obama told me so." I was perplexed."
And old letter published in the NYT:
---------------quoted----------------------
To the Editor:
An important element that should be added to the debate over Senator Barack Obama's health plan is the cost-saving potential of providing coverage to the uninsured. Since insurance works by spreading risk, the more people who sign up for a health plan, the lower the premiums will be for families who already have insurance.
This simple law of health care economics featured prominently in the debate over health insurance mandates during the presidential primaries. In January, a much-publicized report by Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at M.I.T., found that, all else being equal, a health care proposal that mandated coverage for all would cost $1,700 less per newly insured individual than one without added incentives for enrollment.
Now that the primaries are over, Mr. Obama should acknowledge the limitations of an approach that does not include a mandate and work to achieve true cost savings by ensuring that his plan is truly universal. Robert Nelb
Washington, July 23, 2008
The writer is a senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institution.
------------------------------
Althouse,
From the letter cited -
"...all else being equal..."
But all else is not equal, not by a long shot. Never is. The letter is pure academic twaddle, but it does accomplish its goal.
Althouse's Letter Summarized:
Since we've knocked $1700 off each new policy, the more you buy, the more you save.
That's the sort of bull shit advertisement that catches the unwary. But anybody with a lick of sense asks "what is the cost?"
...
As for the Concern Troll steve uhr:
No, states will not face added pressure to start exchanges. Without exchanges the residents of a state cannot be required to buy insurance. The pressure will be precisely in the opposite direction.
Obamacare was designed to insure people, not ensure that medical care was available. Medical care was already universal. Hospitals could not legally reject patients. They could only have a Michelle Obama-type redirect them to a preferred facility. As for costs and resources, the laws of real economics suggest deficits and rationing. Instant or immediate gratification is a motive to consume the opiate.
"I have never have been outraged."
Says the fat fuck who bleated about SECRET ROUTERS! for several years, with an indictment coming any day now.
May your obesity related health issues take you swiftly fat boy.
Go Diabetes, Go!
Lost in all of this is that Roberts broke the code. Obamacare is a tax on the young and healthy. Gruber has admitted as much in the videotape where he talks about the stupidity of voters. Roberts worked it out the first time Obamacare came before the Supreme Court, and apparently he's the only one of the nine who did.
Well done, Chief Justice!
President-Mom-Jeans said...
I can completely understand your frustrations with specific posters on this site. Some seem to have no purpose other than to troll and incite. You often have relevant things to post but that message can get lost in your ad hominem replies. For some, that is their goal. To get you to digress to their level so that your overall message is discredited. Just saying. No reply is necessary. Thank you.
Todd, I and others have been trying to get commenters to ignore the trolls for a long time on conservative/libertarian sites.
It's difficult, especially with some like garage who can be especially frustrating in their inane, irrelevant, ignorant and blatantly dishonest postings. Their entire assignment is not to convince anyone but to disrupt, deflect and misinform. It's what they get paid for.
Eventually though, by ignoring them, they'll either go to another site, hopefully one with Disqus where they can be reported, or their heads will explode. Either way they'll be out of here.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा