|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
What do those questions have to do with this?
The whole reason this is getting traction is because certain conservatives are trying to use it as more 'reason' to repeal the ACA.
Pretty much everyone in politics has said something like this to one degree or another, just most of them don't do it on camera.
What really matters is the legislation and what we can/are doing about it. After umpteen repeal/defund/etc.. attempts the republicans in congress have nothing to show for it but a bunch of wasted time and money(and both houses if that's your perspective). So now that they will have both houses and they (certain factions) want to send repeal to the presidents desk what will they do for those people. Years after the law was signed, after dozens of attempts to undermine, after spending Obama's entire presidency fighting the ACA, those questions are only practical.
So I ask again if blocking/repealing the ACA has been a clear priority of the right, who does repeal help and how (Concretely)? How does it not hurt the groups I mentioned? Should be an easy question since we've heard for 6 years how it needed to happen?
|
So we are down comparing some guy talking bluntly about the fact that the ACA was only passed if certain emotive words were not mentioned ( new tax, old people getting subsidized by the young - LOL common sense/insurance generally anyone?)
versus
the head of the NSA lying about complete surveillance on everyone including the people who are elected officials and whose job it is to oversee their activity.
Right?
Better play the "Boy this lie/sleazy politics thing only applies if people want do pass things I like" card.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the nsa is less of a real problem than the myriad reactions to it. but i dont have time to tackle this one again.
|
On November 16 2014 02:29 oneofthem wrote:
the nsa is less of a real problem than the myriad reactions to it. but i dont have time to tackle this one again.
If you are ok with a small group of people undermining people's privacy and therefore democracy, I guess everything is fine.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
simplistic understanding of privacy and nsa programs.
|
no sane tler is gonna join in on your spineless apologism this time around either.
best leave it alone.
|
|
|
Are there real reasons as to why people hate obama ? Or are they just bored of him ? I don't quite understand why people would vote republicans : from my perspective they already lost the ideological debate (gay mariage, healthcare, etc.). Enlight me.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 16 2014 03:04 nunez wrote:
no sane tler is gonna join in on your spineless apologism this time around either.
best leave it alone.
education takes a willing audience
|
On November 16 2014 03:46 WhiteDog wrote:
Are there real reasons as to why people hate obama ? Or are they just bored of him ? I don't quite understand why people would vote republicans : from my perspective they already lost the ideological debate (gay mariage, healthcare, etc.). Enlight me.
cognative dissonance and mass media manipulation, made possible by a lack of even remotely unbiased media.
Oh and a deep rooted disagreement between the 2 sides bred for generations that has removed any of the original reasoning.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
id hope the data is useful in targeting but obviously it is one of many tools. the details are not as important as the security context which not one of you takes seriously at all. that is just not a workable starting position.
ideology cuts both ways le liberals are not immune to blind drivel.
|
On November 16 2014 03:48 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2014 03:04 nunez wrote:
no sane tler is gonna join in on your spineless apologism this time around either.
best leave it alone. education takes a willing audience
The more I learn, the more I learn how little I know. - Socrates
Some humility goes very well with knowledge I heard.
On November 16 2014 03:52 oneofthem wrote:id hope the data is useful in targeting but obviously it is one of many tools. the details are not as important as the security context which not one of you takes seriously at all. that is just not a workable starting position. ideology cuts both ways le liberals are not immune to blind drivel.
problem is that it's not an ideological problem...
//edit: security context is important? you mean groundless mass surveillance and a paradigm shift that says "everybody is potentially a criminal" and not "innocent until proven guilty"?
|
On November 16 2014 03:48 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2014 03:04 nunez wrote:
no sane tler is gonna join in on your spineless apologism this time around either.
best leave it alone. education takes a willing audience
should try your luck around the closet-fascist forums.
just make sure you dress the boogeyman up in all the right ethnicities before you pop over there.
i'm sure you'll find them both very receptive and politically expedient.
|
On November 15 2014 22:13 Doublemint wrote:
So we are down comparing some guy talking bluntly about the fact that the ACA was only passed if certain emotive words were not mentioned ( new tax, old people getting subsidized by the young - LOL common sense/insurance generally anyone?)
versus
the head of the NSA lying about complete surveillance on everyone including the people who are elected officials and whose job it is to oversee their activity.
Right?
Better play the "Boy this lie/sleazy politics thing only applies if people want do pass things I like" card.
Oh come on now, that wasn't the point at all. It was a tangential observation.
In politics you must speak in a certain way using certain words. I like that this guy doesn't do that, and I selfishly hope it can be used to help destroy this crappy law.
|
On November 16 2014 06:02 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2014 22:13 Doublemint wrote:
So we are down comparing some guy talking bluntly about the fact that the ACA was only passed if certain emotive words were not mentioned ( new tax, old people getting subsidized by the young - LOL common sense/insurance generally anyone?)
versus
the head of the NSA lying about complete surveillance on everyone including the people who are elected officials and whose job it is to oversee their activity.
Right?
Better play the "Boy this lie/sleazy politics thing only applies if people want do pass things I like" card. Oh come on now, that wasn't the point at all. It was a tangential observation. In politics you must speak in a certain way using certain words. I like that this guy doesn't do that, and I selfishly hope it can be used to help destroy this crappy law.
You yourself made that inept comparison. Maybe by mistake but I am not sure I believe that...
On November 15 2014 17:47 Introvert wrote:Ah yes, when it's something we like it's not as big of a deal as say, the NSA chief lying to Congress or what have you. I'd say considering the impact of this law, however, it's certainly worth keeping in mind. It does matter.+ Show Spoiler +Now certainly lying, deception, and word play are not new, but people don't normally admit it. Like the article said, the administration considers it damaging. I just find it fascinating to hear these things straight from the horses mouth, as it were. Put together a 2500 page bill and you can do lots of stuff you always wanted to do! And the topic is still so relevant!
Even though I don't have any skin in the game other than exploring the American political mindset with all its ups and downs, I would think that the ACA is a flawed law. And still it should be a major improvement to what you had before. More people insured and lower costs.
|
On November 16 2014 06:32 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2014 06:02 Introvert wrote:On November 15 2014 22:13 Doublemint wrote:
So we are down comparing some guy talking bluntly about the fact that the ACA was only passed if certain emotive words were not mentioned ( new tax, old people getting subsidized by the young - LOL common sense/insurance generally anyone?)
versus
the head of the NSA lying about complete surveillance on everyone including the people who are elected officials and whose job it is to oversee their activity.
Right?
Better play the "Boy this lie/sleazy politics thing only applies if people want do pass things I like" card. Oh come on now, that wasn't the point at all. It was a tangential observation. In politics you must speak in a certain way using certain words. I like that this guy doesn't do that, and I selfishly hope it can be used to help destroy this crappy law. You yourself made that inept comparison. Maybe by mistake but I am not sure I believe that... Show nested quote +On November 15 2014 17:47 Introvert wrote:Ah yes, when it's something we like it's not as big of a deal as say, the NSA chief lying to Congress or what have you. I'd say considering the impact of this law, however, it's certainly worth keeping in mind. It does matter.+ Show Spoiler +Now certainly lying, deception, and word play are not new, but people don't normally admit it. Like the article said, the administration considers it damaging. I just find it fascinating to hear these things straight from the horses mouth, as it were. Put together a 2500 page bill and you can do lots of stuff you always wanted to do! And the topic is still so relevant! Even though I don't have any skin in the game other than exploring the American political mindset with all its ups and downs, I would think that the ACA is a flawed law. And still it should be a major improvement to what you had before. More people insured and lower costs.
Oh I made the comparison, but it wasn't the center of my point. It was, as I said, an observation. As the side point it is, it's not worth defending right now. So I won't. (Though I agree that any one particular remark, on its own, made by Gruber is not comparable to lying in front of Congress.)
And yes, this matters because it could have ramifications. I hope.
I am not going to get into the merits of law right now, so go ahead and think that, fine by me since you can't vote here 
Anyway, I think we need more people of Gruber's manner, when it comes to talking about this stuff- at least someone that will talk about it like this after the law gets passed and starts to function. I'd prefer it if the people who actually write these bills can't watch their words.
|
On November 16 2014 03:46 WhiteDog wrote:
Are there real reasons as to why people hate obama ? Or are they just bored of him ? I don't quite understand why people would vote republicans : from my perspective they already lost the ideological debate (gay mariage, healthcare, etc.). Enlight me.
We dislike Republicans more than Democrats overall by about 10 points (http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/political-attitudes/republican-party-favorability/). The Democrats are more favored on metrics like social policy. It's hard to really speak of a Democratic foreign policy right now, with Obama's highly schizophrenic and Clinton's as hawkish as most Republicans, despite a general anti-war sentiment among liberal voters and indeed the US public at large. Conservatives have the general distrust in government on their side. For a good, detailed breakdown of issues/groups, see http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/typology-comparison/
But Obama has been a huge fuckup. He pissed off liberals with Guantanamo, drone strikes, increasing inequality during the recovery, going half-assed on Obamacare, prosecuting leakers with a vigor, inaction on gun control, not endorsing gay marriage until his Catholic Vice-President shamed him into it, failing to do a damn thing about immigration (I know the DREAMers, which is a tiny fraction of this problem, and so cynically postponed as to lose all credit), expanding mass surveillance and the like. He pissed off everybody by botching the healthcare.gov fiasco. He was always gonna piss off conservatives, but doing things that piss off liberals and centrists was unnecessary and bizarre.
And in a representative democracy, you get punished if you don't motivate the center to vote for you or your own loyalists to go to the polls. Standing for the right thing isn't enough. If Obama was still in Congress he'd still be against surveillance and gitmo. You actually have to act, or you are punished.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
greatly exaggerated faults and effect of faults. it is mostly politics
|
On November 16 2014 07:04 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2014 03:46 WhiteDog wrote:
Are there real reasons as to why people hate obama ? Or are they just bored of him ? I don't quite understand why people would vote republicans : from my perspective they already lost the ideological debate (gay mariage, healthcare, etc.). Enlight me. We dislike Republicans more than Democrats overall by about 10 points (http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/political-attitudes/republican-party-favorability/). The Democrats are more favored on metrics like social policy. It's hard to really speak of a Democratic foreign policy right now, with Obama's highly schizophrenic and Clinton's as hawkish as most Republicans, despite a general anti-war sentiment among liberal voters and indeed the US public at large. Conservatives have the general distrust in government on their side. For a good, detailed breakdown of issues/groups, see http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/typology-comparison/But Obama has been a huge fuckup. He pissed off liberals with Guantanamo, drone strikes, increasing inequality during the recovery, going half-assed on Obamacare, prosecuting leakers with a vigor, inaction on gun control, not endorsing gay marriage until his Catholic Vice-President shamed him into it, failing to do a damn thing about immigration (I know the DREAMers, which is a tiny fraction of this problem, and so cynically postponed as to lose all credit), expanding mass surveillance and the like. He pissed off everybody by botching the healthcare.gov fiasco. He was always gonna piss off conservatives, but doing things that piss off liberals and centrists was unnecessary and bizarre. And in a representative democracy, you get punished if you don't motivate the center to vote for you or your own loyalists to go to the polls. Standing for the right thing isn't enough. If Obama was still in Congress he'd still be against surveillance and gitmo. You actually have to act, or you are punished.
I agree with all that (except I don't have a problem with what he did on gun control) but it should be mentioned.
About 15-40% of the GOP (about 11%-20% of democrats) also can't stand having a "black, Muslim, foreign born", president either...(and so they vote against his party) Do we not remember the crazy/insane people pushing for his birth certificate? That had to be one of the single dumbest things ever to get traction in the news. The fact that people still think Obama is not an American is a testament to how politicians, allied with parts of the media, combined with stupid, can make people believe anything (no matter how mind-numbingly ignorant it is).
Forty-one percent (41%) of Republicans believe Obama is not an American citizen, compared to 21% of unaffiliateds and 11% of Democrats. Just over 20% of Republicans and unaffiliated adults also are not sure, but only seven percent (7%) of those in the president's party share that doubt.
Source
We can't even get a majority of republicans to be sure their president is an American...In the minds of those people any working with Obama would be treason. Those same people tend to vote in midterms.
|
On November 16 2014 06:32 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2014 06:02 Introvert wrote:On November 15 2014 22:13 Doublemint wrote:
So we are down comparing some guy talking bluntly about the fact that the ACA was only passed if certain emotive words were not mentioned ( new tax, old people getting subsidized by the young - LOL common sense/insurance generally anyone?)
versus
the head of the NSA lying about complete surveillance on everyone including the people who are elected officials and whose job it is to oversee their activity.
Right?
Better play the "Boy this lie/sleazy politics thing only applies if people want do pass things I like" card. Oh come on now, that wasn't the point at all. It was a tangential observation. In politics you must speak in a certain way using certain words. I like that this guy doesn't do that, and I selfishly hope it can be used to help destroy this crappy law. You yourself made that inept comparison. Maybe by mistake but I am not sure I believe that... Show nested quote +On November 15 2014 17:47 Introvert wrote:Ah yes, when it's something we like it's not as big of a deal as say, the NSA chief lying to Congress or what have you. I'd say considering the impact of this law, however, it's certainly worth keeping in mind. It does matter.+ Show Spoiler +Now certainly lying, deception, and word play are not new, but people don't normally admit it. Like the article said, the administration considers it damaging. I just find it fascinating to hear these things straight from the horses mouth, as it were. Put together a 2500 page bill and you can do lots of stuff you always wanted to do! And the topic is still so relevant! Even though I don't have any skin in the game other than exploring the American political mindset with all its ups and downs, I would think that the ACA is a flawed law. And still it should be a major improvement to what you had before. More people insured and lower costs.
More people insured, yes, but lower costs for some and higher costs for others. Also, many issues with execution including Healthcare.gov roll-out and people finding out that what they thought the law would do (if you like your current insurance you can keep it, or what new taxes are involved) and what it really did were different.
People need to keep in mind that the majority of Americans have health insurance at a good cost and coverage, and they'd like to keep it that way.
With that in mind you can see a lot of differences between the ACA and 'Romneycare'. In MA, the health reforms were paired with a large amount of time, effort and money going into explaining to the citizenry what the reforms were, what they were expected to do, why they were needed and what the reforms would require of them. A lot of coalitions were formed to support the reforms including business and insurance groups to preemptively stop any blow-back the reforms would receive. Before and since the law was passed, businesses in MA did not generally argue that the law would cost the economy jobs, hours or wages because they had been per-emptively convinced that the reforms were a good idea. In other words, the state came to a wide consensus that the reforms were both necessary and proper before the reforms were turned into law.
By contrast the ACA was enacted at a time when there were multiple states going down multiple paths of healthcare reform and no real consensus on what reforms should look like. Moreover, what the law actually entailed was pretty vague to the general citizenry to begin with and made even more vague by the tortured wording of the law. When you start marketing your reform package as something you need to pass into law, so that people can see just what the heck it is, you can count on quite a few moderate skeptics to either quit the field, or go join the other side.
It's also worth noting that the ACA was enacted shortly following the largest financial crisis in living memory. People were already very apprehensive about the future and putting the future of healthcare on the table exacerbated a lot of existing worries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
