The Gift That ...

[Yonivore]

... keeps on giving.

Obamacare architect reveals how they lied to get the bill passed.

G790p0LcgbI

Money quote, "In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass."

Got that? You're a stupid American voter. (Well, those that supported this Ponzi scheme, anyway). Fortunately, most Americans saw it for what it was and the polls demonstrate it. So do two subsequent elections where the Obamacare-supporting Democrats have been sent packing.

This, of course, is the same guy that explained how they tried to extort States into establishing exchanges by writing into the law that only State exchanges will be subsidized.

34rttqLh12U

And, those of you who buy the excuse it was a mistake, a typo -- or that Gruber mispoke -- should know he's been recorded saying this more than once and, in at least one case, the statement was part of his prepared remarks.

[ElNono]

Yoni, you know I've never been a fan of Barrycare, and I don't think it's a mistake or typo... but I do think the only thing worse than this turd, was to suggest privatizing Medicare.

Still unfathomable to me how red team gave him a 2nd term.

[Yonivore]

Yoni, you know I've never been a fan of Barrycare, and I don't think it's a mistake or typo... but I do think the only thing worse than this turd, was to suggest privatizing Medicare.

Still unfathomable to me how red team gave him a 2nd term.
Thanks for changing the topic but, in response to your comment, if we don't start privatizing some of the social care spending, we're going to run out of other people's money. Period. It will happen.

[boutons_deux]

" You're a stupid American voter"

... which is the working, successful Repug/Fox/VRWC idea when propagandizing their LIES to the Repug base.

[Fabbs]

All reasonable people knew that single payer option was the way to get this thing back on track.
Repugs made it clear they would pull their pouty self serving bullshit and block it.
Barry did the next best thing.

STFU Pugs.

[Yonivore]

All reasonable people knew that single payer option was the way to get this thing back on track.
Repugs made it clear they would pull their pouty self serving bullshit and block it.
Barry did the next best thing.

STFU Pugs.
It didn't need to be gotten "back on track." People didn't want it. Single-payer healthcare has never enjoyed a majority of support in this country (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html). That's why Democrats had to lie, lie, and then lie some more to get it passed. On top of the lying, they had to strong-arm their own party with Cornhusker kickbacks and other back room deals. Then they had to change the rules of the Senate for it to get through that august body.

But, thankfully, subsequent elections have dealt out the consequences for that and other follies.

[Yonivore]

" You're a stupid American voter"

... which is the working, successful Repug/Fox/VRWC idea when propagandizing their LIES to the Repug base.
But, how do you feel about being lied to over Obamacare, Bouts?

[boutons_deux]

All reasonable people knew that single payer option was the way to get this thing back on track.
Repugs made it clear they would pull their pouty self serving bullshit and block it.
Barry did the next best thing.

STFU Pugs.

It was Sen Max Baucus/Liz Fowler in the employ of the BigHealthIndustry who wrote ACA, who pre-empted govt insurance/public option from even entering the discussion, not the Repugs, although they of course OBSTRUCTED EVERYTHING the Dems proposed. iow, corporation make govt policy to protect/enrich themselves, NOT to help the majority of Americans who wanted to escape the for-profiteers.

[ElNono]

Thanks for changing the topic but, in response to your comment, if we don't start privatizing some of the social care spending, we're going to run out of other people's money. Period. It will happen.

I didn't change the topic Yoni, you referred Barrycare as the gift that keeps on giving... unfortunately, it's a gift that was handed right back when the opportunity arose, sadly, with suggestions of privatizing social care spending. Hopefully there were lessons learned there...

Obviously, it's difficult to sell to people that a business will care more about them than their own bottom line, tbh... which is another reason why the US is still struggling how to tackle artificially high medical pricing...

[boutons_deux]

"we don't start privatizing some of the social care spending, we're going to run out of other people's money."

:lol the new Yoni is exactly like the old Yoni, spewing shit

how much CHEAPER will for-profit orgs that take over "social care" spending charge vs govt doing it, AND who pays them? the poor who receive the social care? :lol

[ElNono]

All reasonable people knew that single payer option was the way to get this thing back on track.
Repugs made it clear they would pull their pouty self serving bullshit and block it.
Barry did the next best thing.

Barry had the political clout to push for single payer at the time, and didn't do it. He instead negotiated a cozy deal with Big Pharma and the Insurance industry, and it became the turd known as Barrycare. Lost opportunity, IMO.

[boutons_deux]

Barry had the political clout to push for single payer at the time, and didn't do it. He instead negotiated a cozy deal with Big Pharma and the Insurance industry, and it became the turd known as Barrycare. Lost opportunity, IMO.

He NEVER had the power to implement public option in face of health insurance industry opposition. They would have "harry-and-louise'd" ACA with a public option to death.

[baseline bum]

He NEVER had the power to implement public option in face of health insurance industry opposition. They would have "harry-and-louise'd" ACA with a public option to death.

Magic Negro is fucked and unfuckable tbh

[ElNono]

He NEVER had the power to implement public option in face of health insurance industry opposition.

He had the power the call their bluff, then let the chips fall as they may. He didn't. That's on him.

[boutons_deux]

Magic Negro is fucked and unfuckable tbh

he was always fuckable by the Repugs, and they fucked him hard and deep.

I expect they will crown their pile of obstructionist shit with impeachment, sooner rather than later.

[baseline bum]

He had the power the call their bluff, then let the chips fall as they may. He didn't. That's on him.

Nigga got bullied by dem blue dog bitches.

[Yonivore]

It was Sen Max Baucus/Liz Fowler in the employ of the BigHealthIndustry who wrote ACA, who pre-empted govt insurance/public option from even entering the discussion, not the Repugs, although they of course OBSTRUCTED EVERYTHING the Dems proposed. iow, corporation make govt policy to protect/enrich themselves, NOT to help the majority of Americans who wanted to escape the for-profiteers.
Boutons can still cobble together a hot key-generated string of nonsensical blather. Good to see some things never change.

[boutons_deux]

Boutons can still cobble together a hot key-generated string of nonsensical blather. Good to see some things never change.

pussy eater is bitched slapped and has no comeback

[Yonivore]

I didn't change the topic Yoni, you referred Barrycare as the gift that keeps on giving... unfortunately, it's a gift that was handed right back when the opportunity arose, sadly, with suggestions of privatizing social care spending. Hopefully there were lessons learned there...

Obviously, it's difficult to sell to people that a business will care more about them than their own bottom line, tbh... which is another reason why the US is still struggling how to tackle artificially high medical pricing...
ElNono, I started the thread and can pretty much tell when the topic's being changed.

The point of the thread was to demonstrate what conservatives and libertarians were saying, back when Barney Franks was telling us all this was the first step to a single-payer system, was true and their position vindicated.

Obama was lying through his teeth about Obamacare.

They weren't going to "bend the cost curve" in any direction but up. They weren't going to lower premiums by $2,500 for each family, and you weren't going to get to keep your doctor if you liked him and wanted to. They were right about death panels, too.

President Lame Duck spent the first two years of his presidency, when he had a veto-proof Congress, cajoling his own party into carrying this piece of crap legislation across the finish line. Nice play.

I was just engaging in a bit of schadenfreude. I was actually referring to Diarrhea Mouth Gruber as the gift.

[Yonivore]

pussy eater is bitched slapped and has no comeback
I confess, it's hard to "come back" to unintelligible babbling.

I still love that you think calling me "pussy eater" is an insult. Thanks!

[boutons_deux]

I confess, it's hard to "come back" to unintelligible babbling.

I still love that you think calling me "pussy eater" is an insult. Thanks!

yeah, you right-wingers need simple sound bytes. any thing longer than 10 words, you blow a fuse, better yet, gfy

[Yonivore]

yeah, you right-wingers need simple sound bytes. any thing longer than 10 words, you blow a fuse, better yet, gfy
Alrighty.

[ElNono]

ElNono, I started the thread and can pretty much tell when the topic's being changed.

The point of the thread was to demonstrate what conservatives and libertarians were saying, back when Barney Franks was telling us all this was the first step to a single-payer system, was true and their position vindicated.

Obama was lying through his teeth about Obamacare.

They weren't going to "bend the cost curve" in any direction but up. They weren't going to lower premiums by $2,500 for each family, and you weren't going to get to keep your doctor if you liked him and wanted to. They were right about death panels, too.

President Lame Duck spent the first two years of his presidency, when he had a veto-proof Congress, cajoling his own party into carrying this piece of crap legislation across the finish line. Nice play.

I was just engaging in a bit of schadenfreude. I was actually referring to Diarrhea Mouth Gruber as the gift.

Fair enough. My recollection is that this thing was called a turd almost universally on arrival. Not sure how much "vindication" you can get outta that.

The left wanted single-payer, the right wanted the status quo. This was neither. IMO, spending all his political capital on that crap that passed was one of his many mistakes.

FWIW, he never had "two years of veto-proof Congress". He had a filibuster-proof Senate for a grand total of 72 days in his first two years, and that's including Blue Dog dems.

[angrydude]

They pushed it through new years eve in the dead of night anyway. They could have pushed anything if they'd wanted. They chose obamacare.

[Yonivore]

Fair enough. My recollection is that this thing was called a turd almost universally on arrival. Not sure how much "vindication" you can get outta that.
Well, to be fair, Spurstalk's Political Forum isn't exactly representative of the rest of the universe. And, my recollection was that those of us who were pointing out the lies, whose predictions about cost, coverage, and all the rest were pretty much vilified in here. But, you're right, that's not what I remember about the rest of the world; everyone pretty much knew it was a piece of crap -- but, no one bothered to tell that to the Senators that sucked Obama's dick and passed it.


The left wanted single-payer, the right wanted the status quo. This was neither. IMO, spending all his political capital on that crap that passed was one of his many mistakes.
And, what we got was worse than the status quo. The same number of individuals that were uninsured before Obamacare, remain uninsured now. Many, many more have had their premiums shoot through the roof. Then, there are all the slights of hand the President has pulled over the past few years to try and shield Democrats from electoral fallout, due to their folly. Arbitrarily extending deadlines, and such.


FWIW, he never had "two years of veto-proof Congress". He had a filibuster-proof Senate for a grand total of 72 days in his first two years, and that's including Blue Dog dems.
Well, his party controlled both Houses of Congress for two years and with Harry Reid's willingness to change Senate rules on a whim, it might as well have been veto proof.

[Yonivore]

They pushed it through new years eve in the dead of night anyway. They could have pushed anything if they'd wanted. They chose obamacare.
Nah, Obamacare was special. "We've got to pass it to see what's in it," isn't something that's said to justify passage of just any piece of legislation.

Bottom line, if they hadn't lied, they wouldn't have been able to pass it. As it stands, the Democrats who were promised cover if they voted it in are now finding out how valuable that promise was...

[ElNono]

Well, to be fair, Spurstalk's Political Forum isn't exactly representative of the rest of the universe. And, my recollection was that those of us who were pointing out the lies, whose predictions about cost, coverage, and all the rest were pretty much vilified in here. But, you're right, that's not what I remember about the rest of the world; everyone pretty much knew it was a piece of crap -- but, no one bothered to tell that to the Senators that sucked Obama's dick and passed it.

Nah, I think what you underestimate is the fact that a lot of people were just as tired of the status quo. Barrycare is a turd, but the previous status quo was just about as bad. What you did is pull a boutons on how doctors will refuse to see patients, etc, which really is silly. Even if Barrycare is a turd, not much of anything has changed (and shouldn't since the main issue wasn't addressed).

What was perhaps the most disappointing is the fact that it was a lost opportunity to address the real problem which is pricing/cost.


And, what we got was worse than the status quo. The same number of individuals that were uninsured before Obamacare, remain uninsured now. Many, many more have had their premiums shoot through the roof. Then, there are all the slights of hand the President has pulled over the past few years to try and shield Democrats from electoral fallout, due to their folly. Arbitrarily extending deadlines, and such.

I don't see that, tbh. There are in fact more people insured, IIRC, but costs wasn't addressed, so you're stuck on the same shit for possibly more money, which, again, was the main concern when it passed and labeled the turd it was labeled.


Well, his party controlled both Houses of Congress for two years and with Harry Reid's willingness to change Senate rules on a whim, it might as well have been veto proof.

But it effectively wasn't. That's not to say that Harry isn't a douche, but there's no need to make stuff up to get your point across.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This particular market intervention was a grab bag for the insurance industry who had already seen the windfall via car insurance mandates and mortgage lending laws. It was conceived by the Heritage Foundation before it got high-jacked by the Tea Party

I don't see why the justice department doesn't break up the hospital cartels. The Justice Department could trying applying antitrust statutes on the hospital industry. I know there are regulations regarding price of goods and services. These were the types of actions that Teddy Roosevelt fought to be able to do 100 years ago when this land was last an oligarchy.

Instead we get civil right crusaders in the justice department to combat GOP gerrymandering. I hate the two party system.

[ChumpDumper]

lol death panels

[Yonivore]

lol death panels
Rationing = Death Panels

Obamacare Routes to Rationing (http://www.nrlc.org/uploads/medethics/LifeatRisk112012.pdf)

[ChumpDumper]

Rationing = Death Panels

Obamacare Routes to Rationing (http://www.nrlc.org/uploads/medethics/LifeatRisk112012.pdf)lol routes

Republicans don't even want to repeal it now.

[2centsworth]

I was opposed to the law, but now that I've seen it in action, I'm a supporter of it. Needs some tweeking, but over the long haul it adds up to me.

As far as King v Burwell, I'm confounded why federal exchanges were ever created if this law only works with subsidies.

[ElNono]

Rationing = Death Panels

Obamacare Routes to Rationing (http://www.nrlc.org/uploads/medethics/LifeatRisk112012.pdf)

This is the kind of stuff that makes it hard to take you seriously, Yoni, tbh

[Yonivore]

This is the kind of stuff that makes it hard to take you seriously, Yoni, tbh

Obamacare does include a death panel, and the separation of powers is its first target: Kevin O'Brien (http://www.cleveland.com/obrien/index.ssf/2014/01/obamacare_does_include_a_death.html)

[Th'Pusher]

Obamacare does include a death panel, and the separation of powers is its first target: Kevin O'Brien (http://www.cleveland.com/obrien/index.ssf/2014/01/obamacare_does_include_a_death.html)
Did the system pre Obamacare ration healthcare?

[Nbadan]

Did the system pre Obamacare ration healthcare?

It's not 'rationing' or 'death panel' when a corporation does it...

[ElNono]

Obamacare does include a death panel, and the separation of powers is its first target: Kevin O'Brien (http://www.cleveland.com/obrien/index.ssf/2014/01/obamacare_does_include_a_death.html)

Fearmongering and rants doesn't do it for me, tbh... They're not reasoned nor well thought out. "death panels" is hyperbole for the gullible. When you start down that road, you end up like boutons, more or less..

[ElNono]

I was opposed to the law, but now that I've seen it in action, I'm a supporter of it. Needs some tweeking, but over the long haul it adds up to me.

As far as King v Burwell, I'm confounded why federal exchanges were ever created if this law only works with subsidies.

That's my hope, tbh... the status quo needed to be shaken up... ACA is a turd, but it's a stepping stone into hopefully eventually getting a better system in place.

[boutons_deux]

"ACA is a turd"

not a total turd, and needs to be fixed, but your Repugs will definitely try to make it much worse and block all attempts at improvement.

[Yonivore]

Fearmongering and rants doesn't do it for me, tbh... They're not reasoned nor well thought out. "death panels" is hyperbole for the gullible. When you start down that road, you end up like boutons, more or less..
So, what would you call a panel whose decisions have the power to limit, restrict, or ration healthcare that could result in the death of an individual?

[tlongII]

"ACA is a turd"

not a total turd, and needs to be fixed, but your Repugs will definitely try to make it much worse and block all attempts at improvement.




Healthcare insurance was better before ACA was introduced. It should be repealed.

[ElNono]

So, what would you call a panel whose decisions have the power to limit, restrict, or ration healthcare that could result in the death of an individual?

:lol what panel is that? The law states:

"The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria."

On top of that, the proposals get Congress oversight...

Now, whether this is the best way to monitor and reduce medicare spending whenever possible, that's certainly up for debate. But those are the kind of debates we need to have in order to improve the law, not unsubstantiated partisan clichés looking to lift a vote or two.

It's unfortunate we live in such a polarized environment where basic democratic tools like "compromise" are viewed as aiding and abetting the enemy... completely illogical, and ends up hurting all americans.

[CosmicCowboy]

Obamacare was basically just an expansion of Medicaid. Virtually all of the new signups are subsidized. Young healthy people that were supposed to bear the brunt of the financing were smart enough to just pay the penalty.

[boutons_deux]

Healthcare insurance was better before ACA was introduced. It should be repealed.

there's no going back

and the Repugs have NO replacement.

[ElNono]

Obamacare was basically just an expansion of Medicaid. Virtually all of the new signups are subsidized. Young healthy people that were supposed to bear the brunt of the financing were smart enough to just pay the penalty.

It was also a cozy deal with the Insurance industry... which is really one of the biggest turd aspects of the law.

I'm actually keen to see what's going to happen once the penalty starts to get enforced... the first year isn't that much, but we'll see what happens when it start growing, especially if the GOP ends up in control.

[DarrinS]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7IlKhqJPH8

[Yonivore]

:lol what panel is that? The law states:

"The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria."

On top of that, the proposals get Congress oversight...

Now, whether this is the best way to monitor and reduce medicare spending whenever possible, that's certainly up for debate. But those are the kind of debates we need to have in order to improve the law, not unsubstantiated partisan clichés looking to lift a vote or two.

It's unfortunate we live in such a polarized environment where basic democratic tools like "compromise" are viewed as aiding and abetting the enemy... completely illogical, and ends up hurting all americans.
I don't know where you get the idea the committee is subject to Congressional oversight. To me, it's all too reminiscent of "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," "Premiums will drop by $2,500 per family," "We will bend the cost of health care," "We have to pass it to see what's in it, " etc...

And, considering the person (about whom this thread was started) has admitted to deception in getting the ACA passed, in the first place, is it really that far of a stretch to believe there isn't deception here, as well?

Death Panels and the Independent Payment Advisory Board (http://www.balch.com/files/Publication/39490a2b-ea75-4ec9-9959-072fab019e56/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/f781b3af-12ff-46fd-abbc-0a9a3f8c4444/Death%20Panels%20and%20IPAB_Newsletter_July12.pdf)


How Does the IPAB Work?

Like many aspects of the ACA, the IPAB does nothing until 2014. But once it starts, it wields immense power. If growth in Medicare exceeds a target rate (growth in the economy plus 1% after 2017), then the IPAB must recommend savings that either reduce that growth to a target rate or otherwise reduce spending by 1.5% after 2017, whichever is less. The goal is for IPAB to prevent Medicare from growing too fast. While the IPAB’s recommendations are not binding, they will become law unless Congress passes substitute legislation and the President signs it. In that regard, IPAB is somewhat reminiscent of the 2006 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. Thus, IPAB’s proposals can become law without Congressional action or approval and will be impervious to a Presidential veto. The IPAB is not subject to Congressional oversight.

Without question, § 3403 concentrates vast power in the hands of a fifteen person Board. It can use that power independent of Congress, of the President, of the judiciary, and – some argue - of the will of the people. Proponents believe that such independence is necessary to protect Medicare from the will of special interests. That being said, the IPAB specifically is prohibited from rationing care, raising taxes or premiums, increasing cost-sharing, or restricting benefits or modifying eligibility for Medicare. As Peter Orszag, a former Obama Director of OMB, framed it in a discussion at the Economic Club of Washington: “This institution could prove to be far more important to the future of our fiscal health than, for example, the Congressional Budget Office. It has an enormous amount of potential power.” Significantly, former Bush administration CMS Chief Mark McClellan has called for “[strengthening] and [clarifying] the authority and capacity of the Independent Payment Advisory Board.”

[Yonivore]

Hearings floated as Hill Republicans seize on Gruber Obamacare comments (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/12/hearings-floated-as-hill-republicans-seize-on-gruber-obamacare-comments/)

Sounds like a good idea to me.

[ChumpDumper]

So, what would you call a panel whose decisions have the power to limit, restrict, or ration healthcare that could result in the death of an individual?A health insurance company.

[ElNono]

I don't know where you get the idea the committee is subject to Congressional oversight.

I said "the proposals get Congress oversight". The panel has no other power than to submit proposals to Congress.

Every year on September 1, IPAB must submit a draft proposal to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. On January 15 of the next year IPAB must submit a proposal to Congress. If IPAB fails to meet this deadline, the HHS must create its own proposal. Congress must consider this proposal under special rules. Congress cannot consider any amendment to the proposal that does not achieve similar cost reductions unless both houses of Congress, including a three-fifths super majority in the Senate, vote to waive this requirement. If Congress fails to adopt a substitute provision by August 15, HHS must implement the proposal as originally submitted to Congress.

So Congress gets the final word. You wanted Congress to cut medicare spending? There you have it. This actually is one of the good aspects of the law, IMO, if we're talking about cutting the fat from medicare.

And Congress, and only Congress, can waive the cost-cutting if they want to.

Now we can argue that those recommendations might need to come from a different source than this panel, that, to me, would be a valid objection, and we can discuss what a better source should be.

[2centsworth]

Healthcare insurance was better before ACA was introduced. It should be repealed.

how so?

[tlongII]

how so?

Cheaper.

[Yonivore]

I said "the proposals get Congress oversight". The panel has no other power than to submit proposals to Congress.

Every year on September 1, IPAB must submit a draft proposal to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. On January 15 of the next year IPAB must submit a proposal to Congress. If IPAB fails to meet this deadline, the HHS must create its own proposal. Congress must consider this proposal under special rules. Congress cannot consider any amendment to the proposal that does not achieve similar cost reductions unless both houses of Congress, including a three-fifths super majority in the Senate, vote to waive this requirement. If Congress fails to adopt a substitute provision by August 15, HHS must implement the proposal as originally submitted to Congress.

So Congress gets the final word. You wanted Congress to cut medicare spending? There you have it. This actually is one of the good aspects of the law, IMO, if we're talking about cutting the fat from medicare.

And Congress, and only Congress, can waive the cost-cutting if they want to.

Now we can argue that those recommendations might need to come from a different source than this panel, that, to me, would be a valid objection, and we can discuss what a better source should be.
I think you've got it wrong.

I submit for your consideration, The Congressional Research Service who, according to their website, ...


...works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS has been a valued and respected resource on Capitol Hill for more than a century.

CRS is well-known for analysis that is authoritative, confidential, objective and nonpartisan. Its highest priority is to ensure that Congress has 24/7 access to the nation’s best thinking.

This website provides information about our organization, career opportunities and our services to Congress.

From the Congressional Research Service (http://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/b950c305-7b9b-4345-a7cf-44503820b727/updated-crs-memo-on-sebelius.pdf) memo to Senator Tom Coburn.

See footnotes at link:


"The Independent Advisory Board was established by Sections 3403 and 10320 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The IPAB is charged by that law by that law with developing proposals to 'reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare Spending.' The Act lays out detailed criteria related to Medicare spending which would trigger a requirement that the IPAB submit recommendations to both Congress and the President, accompanied by, among other things, implementing legislation.

"Under the mechanism created by the Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must implement the IPAB's legislative proposals unless Congress affirmatively acts to amend or block them within a stated period of time and under circumstances specified in the Act.

"Section 3403(d) of the Act establishes special 'fast track' parliamentary procedures governing House and Senate committee consideration, and Senate floor consideration, of legislation implementing the IPAB proposal. These procedures differ from the parliamentary mechanisms the chambers customarily use to consider most legislation and are designed to ensure that Congress can act promptly on the implementing legislation, should it choose to do so. It accomplishes this goal by mandating the immediate introduction of the legislation in Congress; establishing strict deadlines for committee and Senate floor consideration; and placing certain limits on the amending process. The procedures established by the Act permit Congress to amend the IPAB-implementing legislation, but only in a manner that achieves at least the same level of targeted reductions in Medicare spending growth as are contained in teh IPAB plan. The Act bars Congress from changing the IPAB fiscal targets in any other legislation it considers as well, and establishes procedures whereby a super-majority vote is required in the Senate to waive this requirement."
So, to summarize.

The IPAB writes the proposal and legislation to reduce costs.
The HHS Secretary MUST implement unless Congress AFFIRMATIVELY acts to amend or block.
Congress MUST fast track the legislation and consider it under special rules, also written into the law.
Congress can't change the amount of the cuts.
Congress can't change the rules without a super majority.
If Congress doesn't act fast enough, it become law anyway and we're back to the HHS Secretary MUST implement.

[ElNono]

So, to summarize.

The IPAB writes the proposal and legislation to reduce costs.
The HHS Secretary MUST implement unless Congress AFFIRMATIVELY acts to amend or block.
Congress MUST fast track the legislation and consider it under special rules, also written into the law.
Congress can't change the amount of the cuts.
Congress can't change the rules without a super majority.
If Congress doesn't act fast enough, it become law anyway and we're back to the HHS Secretary MUST implement.

So we're in agreement.

- Congress can change what the proposed cuts are (as long as the cuts amount to the same savings)
- Congress can chuck the proposal entirely with a supermajority vote
- This is from a proposal that already "shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria."

I don't know what 'fast enough' even means. The proposal is submitted in January every year, and Congress has until August to act... that's 8 months (2/3 of the year). If they can't get in agreement by then, whose fault is it?

I just don't get you. You bitch because of runaway social spending, but then when you actually get a system in place that mandates Congress to actually yearly review and apply cuts in social spending, you complain too.

I mean, I understand Congress has been a free for all of bitching and moaning until now, but well, maybe it's time they get to work.

[Yonivore]

So we're in agreement.

- Congress can change what the proposed cuts are (as long as the cuts amount to the same savings)
Yeah, because when funding is reduced they take it from the administrative side of the equation.


- Congress can chuck the proposal entirely with a supermajority vote
Good luck getting a super majority in this Congress or any Congress in the near future.


- This is from a proposal that already "shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria."
That is a mathematical impossibility. To make any meaningful cuts in any social spending requires that you reduce benefits. That's where the bulk of the money goes.


I don't know what 'fast enough' even means. The proposal is submitted in January every year, and Congress has until August to act... that's 8 months (2/3 of the year). If they can't get in agreement by then, whose fault is it?

[QUOTE=ElNono;7670671]I just don't get you. You bitch because of runaway social spending, but then when you actually get a system in place that mandates Congress to actually yearly review and apply cuts in social spending, you complain too.
I'm all for cutting spending in social programs, it's this fantasy that it can be done without hurting the recipients that's bugging me. There are other social programs that could be cut before you start mucking up Medicare.


I mean, I understand Congress has been a free for all of bitching and moaning until now, but well, maybe it's time they get to work.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see how bad the government can fuck this up, too.

I think the IPAB is just a mechanism by which Congress can, one again, avoid their responsibility over the purse.

[ElNono]

Yeah, because when funding is reduced they take it from the administrative side of the equation.

Good luck getting a super majority in this Congress or any Congress in the near future.

Congress can switch to reduce funding from anywhere they want. There's no constrains about the switcheroo they can do. They do need to keep the savings level but they don't need a supermajority to do that.

And if the proposal are going to be so bad, as you seem to imply, then getting a supermajority for that vote shouldn't be that much of a problem, I don't think. I mean, "don't touch my Medicare" is a pretty uniform call-sign from both parties' voters.


That is a mathematical impossibility. To make any meaningful cuts in any social spending requires that you reduce benefits. That's where the bulk of the money goes.

But the law doesn't require to make "meaningful cuts" all at once. The law required for the panel to review and see where they can make progressive cuts on a yearly basis without reducing benefits, etc. ie: they can just recommend Medicare stops paying $20 for gauze, and pay $10 instead. You could argue those little cuts are not "meaningful" (and I would agree), but they're cuts, and they add up over time, especially given the scope of medicare.


I'm all for cutting spending in social programs, it's this fantasy that it can be done without hurting the recipients that's bugging me. There are other social programs that could be cut before you start mucking up Medicare.

There's not going to be meaningful cost cutting with ACA, because it did not address costs. I mean, this is actually a tiny part of the law that attempts to do some of that, but you can see it's extremely limited.

Actual, meaningful cost cutting will have to come with an amendment at another time. You suggest that recipients should be the ones bearing the brunt of that cost reduction. I personally think service providers should, in light of pricing for the same services all around the world. Ideally, I guess it's somewhere in the middle. But ACA dodged that entirely.


I guess we'll just have to wait and see how bad the government can fuck this up, too.

I think the IPAB is just a mechanism by which Congress can, one again, avoid their responsibility over the purse.

Congress always has the ultimate weapon: the budget. They can just make their own cuts through (lack of) funding for Medicare overall. This panel's proposals don't preempt that, AFAIK.

[Yonivore]

But, wait, there's more!

Y_e00NjQvFM

Obama was supposedly in the room and helped develop the "Cadillac Tax" lie.

This is just getting better.

[2centsworth]

Cheaper.

Costs equals premium + Out-of-Pocket, which made healthcare overall more expensive in the past.

[tlongII]

Nope

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yoni certainly is enraptured by obvious political theater.

[SupremeGuy]

lol this dude basically calls anyone that supported/supports obamacare a fucking idiot and the demorats still defend him

Blind obedience from the demorats. It's amazing, really.

[angrydude]

Yoni certainly is enraptured by obvious political theater.

I know. It certainly is dramatic when you got someone going around bragging about how he and the President plotted to and in fact did lie to everyone to get support for an experimental wide reaching health care law.

[Yonivore]

Oh Boy: In Jon Gruber's Newest (Sixth) Video, He Explains How Obama and Democrats Conspired to Get Rid of Tax Exemptions for All Insurance Plans Without Anyone Noticing

Obamacare architect in 6th video: 'Mislabeling' helped us get rid of tax breaks (http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/14/politics/gruber-update-friday-white-house-obamacare/index.html)

The guy who's been finding these said that the worst was yet to come.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I know. It certainly is dramatic when you got someone going around bragging about how he and the President plotted to and in fact did lie to everyone to get support for an experimental wide reaching health care law.

As if only one side deliberately misleads the public. I don't think you will find many Obama supporters around here anyway.

[m>s]

is his name seriously shekel gruber? what a literal fucking slimeball piece of shit, dude needs to get fucked by a sawed off and kill himself. i'm so motherfucking sick of the left those fucking traitorous cancerous sons of bitches.

[ElNono]

lol this dude basically calls anyone that supported/supports obamacare a fucking idiot and the demorats still defend him

Blind obedience from the demorats. It's amazing, really.

It's really worse than that. Now the likes of Pelosi claim they never heard of him, after being taped talking about him.

[SupremeGuy]

I know. It certainly is dramatic when you got someone going around bragging about how he and the President plotted to and in fact did lie to everyone to get support for an experimental wide reaching health care law.:cry it's just political theatre :cry
:cry msnbc told me so :cry

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:cry it's just political theatre :cry
:cry msnbc told me so :cry

You seriously do not think this has anything to do with the legislative push that the GOP has gearing up?

I don't watch MSNBC or any TV news for that matter. How would you know what they say there btw or are you just assuming that a dissenting view to the GOP comes from there?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1-6mcg9_J8

Here is the RNC's attempt at a twitter campaign. They even have hashtags for it.

I mean nevermind that what he was talking about it regarding it being a tax was out of the bag in Roberts ruling last year. *gasp* 'Cadillac plans' was a buzzword generated like a marketing slogan. *swoon*

I actually think it's funny that they have this guy spelling it out like his audience is a bunch of simpletons. Thing is that I realized it was political theater back then too.

And FWIW, I think that Pelosi, Reid, and Schumer are scum just like the RNC guys you support.

[SupremeGuy]

The Republicans didn't make those videos, or those comments. I mean, he's basically calling you(supporters of obamacare) stupid, and telling you that he and the president conspired to lie to the American people, and somehow this is Republican propaganda?

What is this? I don't even...

[angrydude]

Fact is there wouldn't be anything for republicans to make hay over if Grubber wasn't going around spiking the football and giving Americans the middle finger.

[Yonivore]

The "Hitler finds out ... " meme never gets old.

DKhkQqA53v0

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The Republicans didn't make those videos, or those comments. I mean, he's basically calling you(supporters of obamacare) stupid, and telling you that he and the president conspired to lie to the American people, and somehow this is Republican propaganda?

What is this? I don't even...

I found the video on the GOP's front page and the author of the youtube is GOP.com. He stated that they knew it was a tax but that was laid forth over a year ago by the Supreme Court in the landmark case.

IT IS NOT NEW INFORMATION.

As I said before, the Dems were saying that it wasn't a tax and that it wasn't unfairly burdening younger citizens like a bunch of lying pieces of shit just like the GOP was making up stories about death panels and the destruction of the insurance industry.

The large swathes of the US electorate are a bunch of simpletons. The GOP are masters at harnessing their indignation and have been since before they switched parties.

[angrydude]

We get it. He made those videos a long time ago. He's not saying anything that hasn't been debated. You think the GOP is cynically bringing this up now.

Two problems with that reasoning.

1. Some things deserve attention even though they've been on the internet for a while. Sometimes it takes time for people to find and realize the significance of something.
2. There is a whole hell of a lot of difference between lawyers stating their opinion about what they think a law was intended to do, and one of the authors of that bill flat out stating what it's purpose was and how it was meant to deceive others.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We get it. He made those videos a long time ago. He's not saying anything that hasn't been debated. You think the GOP is cynically bringing this up now.

Two problems with that reasoning.

1. Some things deserve attention even though they've been on the internet for a while. Sometimes it takes time for people to find and realize the significance of something.
2. There is a whole hell of a lot of difference between lawyers stating their opinion about what they think a law was intended to do, and one of the authors of that bill flat out stating what it's purpose was and how it was meant to deceive others.

These videos haven't been out for that long. The GOP sat on them until the eve of the upcoming legislative session at which point they 'surfaced.' Did it occur to you to ask how long they have been sitting on them? For example some of the footage is from 2011 when the law was still in question. Did they have them then? You don't even consider that but when it arrives in slick packaging and a twitter campaign you eat it whole.

The Supreme Court is not a 'lawyer.' Roberts flat out said in his majority decision that despite what the dems were saying, the mandate per se was a tax relative to the constitution. They are the arbiters of what is what when it comes to the law of the land. Their job is to cut through all the bullshit and arrive at the truth. They rule by definition. It was even a conservative chief justice that laid it out for us.

So your contention is that it takes over two years to realize that inflammatory commentary like an economist calling the US electorate 'stupid' was newsworthy? gmafb. It's so obviously contrived it's saddening. The issue here is an elite calling the electorate stupid and the insecurity that it resonates with. It's the exact same tactic the southern gentry used to align poor white sharecroppers to side with them politically against uppity 'yankees' and the like. The funny thing is that the modern analog to indentured workers in 5 figure republicans go for the exact same bait from people who think you are just as stupid as the damn yankee does.

[angrydude]

These videos haven't been out for that long. The GOP sat on them until the eve of the upcoming legislative session at which point they 'surfaced.' Did it occur to you to ask how long they have been sitting on them? For example some of the footage is from 2011 when the law was still in question. Did they have them then? You don't even consider that but when it arrives in slick packaging and a twitter campaign you eat it whole.

The Supreme Court is not a 'lawyer.' Roberts flat out said in his majority decision that despite what the dems were saying, the mandate per se was a tax relative to the constitution. They are the arbiters of what is what when it comes to the law of the land. Their job is to cut through all the bullshit and arrive at the truth. They rule by definition. It was even a conservative chief justice that laid it out for us.

So your contention is that it takes over two years to realize that inflammatory commentary like an economist calling the US electorate 'stupid' was newsworthy? gmafb. It's so obviously contrived it's saddening. The issue here is an elite calling the electorate stupid and the insecurity that it resonates with. It's the exact same tactic the southern gentry used to align poor white sharecroppers to side with them politically against uppity 'yankees' and the like. The funny thing is that the modern analog to indentured workers in 5 figure republicans go for the exact same bait from people who think you are just as stupid as the damn yankee does.

The decision was 5-4 and the SCOTUS is not an infallible arbitrator of truth. It once said slavery was A-ok. It often reverses itself due to nothing more than pure political pressure (the Roosevelt Court). The fact it ruled Obamacare was a tax does not mean it is so any more than it means a corporation is a person.

Why is Bill Cosby's sexual assault history back in the news? How is that relevant to 2014? It happens because things happen and get exposure. You seem to think the "press" or whatever is all over any bit of news the second it happens, and if they don't break it within a week then obviously it's irrelevant. Please.

As for your civil war rhetoric. WTH?

[angrydude]

Besides, why didn't this break right before the election? If the GOP is playing the game you think they are, they really fucked up.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The decision was 5-4 and the SCOTUS is not an infallible arbitrator of truth. It once said slavery was A-ok. It often reverses itself due to nothing more than pure political pressure (the Roosevelt Court). The fact it ruled Obamacare was a tax does not mean it is so any more than it means a corporation is a person.

Why is Bill Cosby's sexual assault history back in the news? How is that relevant to 2014? It happens because things happen and get exposure. You seem to think the "press" or whatever is all over any bit of news the second it happens, and if they don't break it within a week then obviously it's irrelevant. Please.

As for your civil war rhetoric. WTH?

That is not civil war history. It's US history from it's inception up to now. The political strategy hasn't changed much. Telling your constituents the Yankees think youre stupid and inferior is a common tactic since the union was founded. And 5 figure republicans are the current demographic that eats that up just like indentured workers, sharecroppers and all poor white southerners through time. It is what it is.

If you didn't realize that the government demanding money isn't a tax because of democratic spin before the SCOTUS ruled then I feel sorry for you. If you didn't realize it after they had ruled then I don't know what to tell you. If you want to pretend that what they rule is irrelevant then have fun with that.

You don't even address my point about the GOP sitting on this and then releasing it with a twitter campaign demonstrating how it is political theater. All in all I just see you cheering on your GOP overlords. If you want to think they represent your best interests then go ahead. I will think you foolish for doing so.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Besides, why didn't this break right before the election? If the GOP is playing the game you think they are, they really fucked up.

because there wasn't a legislative session and the democrats were content to sit on their hands.

[Yonivore]

because there wasn't a legislative session and the democrats were content to sit on their hands.
The Democrats would have had a worse election day than they already did if this had broke BEFORE the election.

Besides, as has already been pointed out, the news is what the videos contain -- not that they're being released.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The Democrats would have a worse election day than they already did if this had broke BEFORE the election.

Besides, as has already been pointed out, the news is what the videos contain -- not that they're being released.

The narrative that you are regurgitating is 'what the videos contain' *outrage* but to not question the timing and the source is just a lack of critical thinking skills. As for the election, POTUS was widely unpopular with democrats avoiding him like the plague, it is not as if they needed something to drop his ratings. Further, the GOP ran on a very non-issue based campaign. I am sure you have watched many of the GOP campaign ads so you know this. OTOH, what do the polls say about Obamacare. . . oh yeah. . . . .

:lol so 4 videos come out in two days along with an obviously prepared media campaign and you think it is just coincidence? you are going to believe whatever you like I guess.

[ElNono]

Maybe I'm wrong, but my perception is that people at this point don't really care anymore. It's "more of the same" from the Congress with a 16% approval rating.

Even if you try to peg it on Barry, he's a lame duck prez now. I'm expecting the Clintons to come out firing at him now too. He's gonna be a punching bag for the next 2 years.

[Spurminator]

Crocodile tears by the GOP. The voters didn't pass the ACA. Congress did, and they had all of the information they needed when they passed it.

Funny to watch Republicans get all uppity about supposed voter deception when that has essentially been Karl Rove Politics 101 for the last 20 years.

[ChumpDumper]

The Republicans should claim that there are Obamacare mobile death labs.

http://www.efootage.com/video-clip-images/B-2045/77158/Aerial_View_Of_Ambulance.jpg

At least that worked once.

[Yonivore]

Maybe I'm wrong, but my perception is that people at this point don't really care anymore. It's "more of the same" from the Congress with a 16% approval rating.

Even if you try to peg it on Barry, he's a lame duck prez now. I'm expecting the Clintons to come out firing at him now too. He's gonna be a punching bag for the next 2 years.
When their rates shoot through the roof, they'll care.

[ElNono]

When their rates shoot through the roof, they'll care.

I'm thinking it's going to be when the individual mandate eventually gets some bite. Obviously, that's if the King v Burwell is decided in the government favor, otherwise, all bets are off.

[Yonivore]

Crocodile tears by the GOP. The voters didn't pass the ACA. Congress did, and they had all of the information they needed when they passed it.
You mean, Democrats passed it. Republicans had absolutely nothing to do with the deception.


Funny to watch Republicans get all uppity about supposed voter deception when that has essentially been Karl Rove Politics 101 for the last 20 years.
Do tell.

[Spurminator]

You mean, Democrats passed it. Republicans had absolutely nothing to do with the deception.

So what deceit led directly to getting it passed? Why should I, as a voter, feel that I was lied to about ACA?


Do tell.

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage and, basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever." - Gruber, describing either the passage of Obamacare or the Crossroads GPS marketing strategy.

[Yonivore]

s6yoHcOhF0U


"I have stolen ideas liberally ... from ... Jon Gruber."

[boutons_deux]

"I have stolen ideas liberally ... from ... Jon Gruber."

... except the idea that ACA was to be constructed so it self-destructed.

[Yonivore]

Gruber Was Key to Getting ObamaCare Passed (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/111714-726840-gruber-deception-helped-enact-obamacare.htm?p=full)


The lies are getting pretty thick these days. The president claims that he never misled anyone about ObamaCare and that Jonathan Gruber was just "some adviser." In fact, Gruber was a key player in the deception.

When Fox News' Ed Henry asked Obama on Sunday if he'd misled the American people "in order to get the bill passed," Obama's answer was "No, I did not." Space prohibits listing all the ways Obama did, in fact, mislead the public.

Bret Baier Reports: Transparency Issues Plagued Obamacare From The Start (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/11/18/bret_baier_transparency_issues_plagued_obamacare_f rom_the_start.html)

aJMDNbQ_jW0


BARACK OBAMA: The reason that I think this conversation ends up being a little frustrating is because the focus entirely is on Washington procession and, yes, I have said it, that is an ugly process.

BRET BAIER: This is one sixth of the U.S. economy.

OBAMA: And Bret, let me tell you something, the fact of the matter is that for the vast majority of the people, their health care is not going to change.

BRET BAIER: You guarantee that they're not going to -- they're going to be able to keep their doctors.

BARACK OBAMA: You've got to let me finish my answers.

BRET BAIER: But sir, I know you don't like the filibuster.

BARACK OBAMA: The notion that this is not transparent, that nobody knows what's in the bill. Everybody know what is in bill. I sat for seven hours--

BRET BAIER: Mr. President, you couldn't tell me what the special deals are--

BARACK OBAMA: I just told you.

BRET BAIER: Is Connecticut in?

BARACK OBAMA: Connecticut? What are you specifically referring to?

BRET BAIER: $100 million for the hospital. Is Montana in for the asbestos program? This is people, this is real money, people are worried about this stuff.

BARACK OBAMA: As I said before, the final provisions are going to be posted for many days before this thing passes.
That exchange took place three days before the house voted on the health care bill that eventually became law.

[Yonivore]

FoxNews and CNN's Jake Tapper continue to do the heavy lifting for the media...

kDomkBtJC7Q

Obama promised Obamacare wouldn't do exactly what Gruber says it will do (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/18/politics/gruber-obamacare-promises/index.html)
Video at the link.

[ElNono]

Yoni, does Club for Growth pay you for posting their videos? You should look into it if they do not...

[ElNono]

Hope boutons is also getting some spare change for the effort he puts spamming the place largely with things nobody cares about, IMO...

[Spurminator]

Newly Insured Through Exchanges Give Coverage Good Marks
http://www.gallup.com/poll/179396/newly-insured-exchanges-give-coverage-good-marks.aspx

by Frank Newport

Story Highlights



Americans with new exchange-obtained insurance are positive
The newly insured are more satisfied with costs than others
Most will renew their policies; few will drop insurance


PRINCETON, N.J. -- Over seven in 10 Americans who bought new health insurance policies through the government exchanges earlier this year rate the quality of their healthcare and their healthcare coverage as "excellent" or "good." These positive evaluations are generally similar to the reviews that all insured Americans give to their health insurance.

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/bzdrvtsyhe2whtlbdv7xqa.png
Among those who bought new health insurance policies through the exchanges, the majority are about as satisfied with their coverage and healthcare as are other Americans -- suggesting that the end result of the exchange enrollment process is a generally positive one for those who take advantage of it. Americans who still lack health insurance will have the opportunity to buy coverage when the national insurance marketplace exchanges open again on Nov. 15.
These data reflecting newly insured Americans' attitudes toward their healthcare coverage are based on interviews conducted Oct. 22 through Nov. 12 on Gallup Daily tracking. Gallup asked all Americans with health insurance if their coverage was new for 2014, and if so, whether they had obtained their coverage through federal or state exchanges. About 4% of the adult population classify themselves as being newly insured this year through the exchanges. The comparison group of all Americans with insurance is from Gallup's annual healthcare survey, conducted this year Nov. 6-9.
In addition to newly insured Americans rating their coverage and the quality of their healthcare positively, they are more satisfied than the average insured American with the cost of their health coverage. Three in four of the newly insured say they are satisfied with this aspect of their healthcare experience, compared with 61% among the general population of those with insurance. To some degree, this could reflect the fact that many who get insurance through the exchanges receive government subsidies to help reduce the overall cost of their health insurance.

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/7t7jz31voue_erzrmzmukg.png
Newly insured Americans' positive attitudes toward their health coverage are manifested in their coverage intentions going forward. Among those who bought a new policy through a government exchange this year, 68% say they will renew their current policy, while 7% say they plan to get a different policy through a state or federal exchange. Meanwhile, 15% say they will get a different policy from another source, and 2% say they will drop their health insurance altogether.

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/aehserutykc8dhv9b8ovaa.png
Bottom Line
Americans who obtained new health insurance policies in 2014 using the government exchanges are roughly as positive about their healthcare coverage and the quality of healthcare they receive as the average insured American, and are more satisfied with the cost of their coverage. More than two-thirds of the newly insured who purchased coverage through federal or state exchanges intend to renew their exchange policies, while another 7% plan to look for a different policy through the exchanges.

As the healthcare exchanges reopen on Nov. 15, these data suggest that the currently uninsured will mostly be pleased with the outcome if they opt to use the exchanges to obtain insurance on this second go-around.

Survey Methods

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Oct. 22-Nov. 12, 2014, on the Gallup U.S. Daily survey, with a random sample of 407 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, who are newly insured in 2014 through a government health insurance exchange.

For results based on this sample, the margin of sampling error is ±6 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.

Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods.

[Yonivore]

Yoni, does Club for Growth pay you for posting their videos? You should look into it if they do not...

I don't even go to their website, these videos were found in various other places.

[ElNono]

I don't even go to their website, these videos were found in various other places.

Looks like mailing list material, tbh...

[Yonivore]

Looks like mailing list material, tbh...
Nope, I'm not on any mailing lists, either.

But, seriously, is that really the point here? Can you not respond to the information in the videos -- just attempt to mock or belittle their source?

[ElNono]

Nope, I'm not on any mailing lists, either.

But, seriously, is that really the point here? Can you not respond to the information in the videos -- just attempt to mock or belittle their source?

don't watch infomercials... I like to do my own research and come to my own conclusions... seems like the sane thing to do, tbh

[Yonivore]

don't watch infomercials... I like to do my own research and come to my own conclusions... seems like the sane thing to do, tbh
So, without watching the videos, you think they don't provide enough information for anyone to draw a conclusion?

I don't guess I understand the willingness to remain ignorant of a potential opposing viewpoint.

[ElNono]

So, without watching the videos, you think they don't provide enough information for anyone to draw a conclusion?

I don't guess I understand the willingness to remain ignorant of a potential opposing viewpoint.

What do you mean? I read a lot of left and right publications, local and international, including politico, redstate, etc. I also take into consideration what their leaning is.

I just try not to bite into the fluff that have an inherent interest at hand, like the informercial you posted, Fox, MSNBC, etc... The people that made that video get paid to do that, it's their job, not their intellect at play.

I mean, at this day and age, do you really need anybody to tell you that politicians lie through the teeth?

The difference between you and I, Yoni, is that you let politics get to your emotional side. You hate one team. You're the boutons of the right.

Me, I don't get emotional over politics. I don't hate anybody. I might like or not the system, the person, etc, but I try not to get sucked into the vortex.

Maybe it's because I didn't grow up here, or because I really couldn't participate up until a few years ago, but whatever the reason, I still feel like an outsider when it comes to US politics.

[Yonivore]

What do you mean? I read a lot of left and right publications, local and international, including politico, redstate, etc. I also take into consideration what their leaning is.

I just try not to bite into the fluff that have an inherent interest at hand, like the informercial you posted, Fox, MSNBC, etc... The people that made that video get paid to do that, it's their job, not their intellect at play.

I mean, at this day and age, do you really need anybody to tell you that politicians lie through the teeth?

The difference between you and I, Yoni, is that you let politics get to your emotional side. You hate one team. You're the boutons of the right.

Me, I don't get emotional over politics. I don't hate anybody. I might like or not the system, the person, etc, but I try not to get sucked into the vortex.

Maybe it's because I didn't grow up here, or because I really couldn't participate up until a few years ago, but whatever the reason, I still feel like an outsider when it comes to US politics.
That's quite a rant for a non-emotional guy.

The Obama administration paid a guy to help write and sell a major piece of legislation (essentially taking over better than 15% of the U.S. Economy) then they and leading Democrats in Congress turned around and pointed to him as an "independent" expert on the law and, when this expert is found to have been spouting off his mouth about all the deception and cheap tricks the administration and he used to dupe the American people into believing they were getting a great deal, the administration and Democrats all of a sudden have amnesia and don't know the guy.

These videos simply get the facts straight. I invite you to watch them and let me know where they mislead. And, to be fair, I've posted articles to support these claims.

Finally, your assertion all politicians lie through the teeth is usually only heard when it's your guy's ox being gored and you have no defense. Your turning to my use of videos, instead of addressing the scandal, tell me you've got nothing with which to counter. You say you do your own research and draw your own conclusions. What is your conclusion about Jonathan Gruber and his relationship with the Obama administration and from where do you draw this conclusion?

[ElNono]

That's quite a rant for a non-emotional guy.

The Obama administration paid a guy to help write and sell a major piece of legislation (essentially taking over better than 15% of the U.S. Economy) then they and leading Democrats in Congress turned around and pointed to him as an "independent" expert on the law and, when this expert is found to have been spouting off his mouth about all the deception and cheap tricks the administration and he used to dupe the American people into believing they were getting a great deal, the administration and Democrats all of a sudden have amnesia and don't know the guy.

:lol now this is what I call a rant


These videos simply get the facts straight. I invite you to watch them and let me know where they mislead. And, to be fair, I've posted articles to support these claims.

I never said the claims are not true, that's not a position I need to defend. I actually made light of the fact that Pelosi pretends not to know the guy.

I would just be more interested in your actual take on the subject, than what Crossroads GPS take is. I kinda already know what their take is.


Finally, your assertion all politicians lie through the teeth is usually only heard when it's your guy's ox being gored and you have no defense. Your turning to my use of videos, instead of addressing the scandal, tell me you've got nothing with which to counter. You say you do your own research and draw your own conclusions. What is your conclusion about Jonathan Gruber and his relationship with the Obama administration and from where do you draw this conclusion?

That it's reprehensible... and what I posted earlier:


Maybe I'm wrong, but my perception is that people at this point don't really care anymore. It's "more of the same" from the Congress with a 16% approval rating.

Even if you try to peg it on Barry, he's a lame duck prez now. I'm expecting the Clintons to come out firing at him now too. He's gonna be a punching bag for the next 2 years.

[ElNono]

BTW, Barry is not my guy, never been. You can look through my post history, I've criticized the guy plenty of times.

[Yonivore]

:lol now this is what I call a rant
Not a rant, a summary.


I never said the claims are not true, that's not a position I need to defend. I actually made light of the fact that Pelosi pretends not to know the guy.

I would just be more interested in your actual take on the subject, than what Crossroads GPS take is. I kinda already know what their take is.
My take? Jonathan Gruber makes the administration's position in King v. Burwell almost untenable. And, as such, it is in their interest to obfuscate and try to confuse the significance of Gruber's contribution to Obamacare and his relationship with the President. Additionally, Gruber's video- and audio-taped admissions will probably give rise to other legal challenges to Obamacare and resurrect those thought settled.

That's my take.


That it's reprehensible... and what I posted earlier:
Just reprehensible? You don't believe there will (or should) be legal ramifications to his admissions?

For starters, how easy is it going to be to convince a court that the law intended for subsidies to be available to those who enrolled through the federal exchange when the chief architect of the legislation went around talking about how they deliberately crafted the legislation to exclude such subsidies in an effort to extort States into establishing exchanges?

[Yonivore]

BTW, Barry is not my guy, never been. You can look through my post history, I've criticized the guy plenty of times.
Not interested. I doubt I'll remember your position tomorrow -- I'm generally responding to whatever post I quote.

[ElNono]

My take? Jonathan Gruber makes the administration's position in King v. Burwell almost untenable. And, as such, it is in their interest to obfuscate and try to confuse the significance of Gruber's contribution to Obamacare and his relationship with the President. Additionally, Gruber's video- and audio-taped admissions will probably give rise to other legal challenges to Obamacare and resurrect those thought settled.

That's my take.

Thanks.


Just reprehensible? You don't believe there will (or should) be legal ramifications to his admissions?
For starters, how easy is it going to be to convince a court that the law intended for subsidies to be available to those who enrolled through the federal exchange when the chief architect of the legislation went around talking about how they deliberately crafted the legislation to exclude such subsidies in an effort to extort States into establishing exchanges?

We don't prosecute thought crimes in the US. We also don't prosecute people that state a less than desirable opinion (even reprehensible). Ultimately, whatever he thought didn't really pan out, as certain states did indeed not establish exchanges, and the 'workaround' is how we arrive to King vs Burwell.

I do think his comments were reprehensible and damaging to democracy.

[Yonivore]

Thanks.



We don't prosecute thought crimes in the US. We also don't prosecute people that state a less than desirable opinion (even reprehensible). Ultimately, whatever he thought didn't really pan out, as certain states did indeed not establish exchanges, and the 'workaround' is how we arrive to King vs Burwell.

I do think his comments were reprehensible and damaging to democracy.
I'm not sure paying Gruber to author and sell Obamacare while, on the other hand, holding him up a some independent outside expert is simply a thought crime. I'm betting there some actual criminality there, somewhere and, it should be investigated.

For instance, were there any Democratic Senators that voted in favor of the bill based on information given them by Jonathan Gruber? It would only take one. Surely you recall all the backroom finagling Obama had to do to get the votes for this piece of crap legislation. How many of the Democratic Senators espoused their support, based on Gruber assurances and, in effect, perpetuated the ruse? Some of the videos I posted demonstrate how heavily Gruber was relied upon by those hoping to persuade the rest of us to buy into Obamacare. Combine Gruber's escapades with other Congressional payoffs (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30815.html) and I think there is sufficient grounds to question the legitimacy of the entire law.

That aside, not all "legal ramifications" are criminal. I think Gruber, particularly, could be subject to some civil litigation over the misrepresentations.

[ElNono]

I'm not sure paying Gruber to author and sell Obamacare while, on the other hand, holding him up a some independent outside expert is simply a thought crime. I'm betting there some actual criminality there, somewhere and, it should be investigated.

For instance, were there any Democratic Senators that voted in favor of the bill based on information given them by Jonathan Gruber? It would only take one. Surely you recall all the backroom finagling Obama had to do to get the votes for this piece of crap legislation. How many of the Democratic Senators espoused their support, based on Gruber assurances and, in effect, perpetuated the ruse? Some of the videos I posted demonstrate how heavily Gruber was relied upon by those hoping to persuade the rest of us to buy into Obamacare. Combine Gruber's escapades with other Congressional payoffs (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30815.html) and I think there is sufficient grounds to question the legitimacy of the entire law.

That aside, not all "legal ramifications" are criminal. I think Gruber, particularly, could be subject to some civil litigation over the misrepresentations.

I just don't see a case. It's not the first law that's ambiguous (courts decide such ambiguities all the time, King vs Burwell being another in a long list), and he's free to say whatever he wants. What would a case against him look like? What would be the charges? Did he personally gain anything from these alleged misdeeds?

What you call 'payoffs' is what every elected representative are sent to do: try to get the best possible deal for their state. This isn't new, that's what compromise is: give and take. That's how democracy has worked for ages. It's not pretty, but it rarely is.

IMO, there's no GruberGate, much like there's no Bush war criminal. It's fluff to get the gullible excited.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't even go to their website, these videos were found in various other places.

That should tell you something but it doesn't which is sad.

[Yonivore]

I just don't see a case. It's not the first law that's ambiguous (courts decide such ambiguities all the time, King vs Burwell being another in a long list), and he's free to say whatever he wants. What would a case against him look like? What would be the charges? Did he personally gain anything from these alleged misdeeds?
Yes. Millions of dollars in consulting fees to write a piece of legislation that he then was then paid to tout as if he was an independent economic expert.


What you call 'payoffs' is what every elected representative are sent to do: try to get the best possible deal for their state. This isn't new, that's what compromise is: give and take. That's how democracy has worked for ages. It's not pretty, but it rarely is.
If you won't concede Obamacare qualifies as unique in the history of Congressional acts then, we may as well disagree and move on.


IMO, there's no GruberGate, much like there's no Bush war criminal. It's fluff to get the gullible excited.
Fair enough, I believe there is a scandal. But, I do agree, President Bush isn't guilty of any war crimes.

[SnakeBoy]

I'm not sure paying Gruber to author and sell Obamacare while, on the other hand, holding him up a some independent outside expert is simply a thought crime. I'm betting there some actual criminality there, somewhere and, it should be investigated.


I don't see how there is criminality. Obamacare was misrepresented by politicians but you could say that about most legislation. I don't see Gruber's comments as anything we didn't already know. And it's not like Americans were actually tricked, cnn polling had 59% opposing it just prior to passage and the law has been pretty much underwater ever since.

[Spurminator]

Can we retire the "-gate" suffix? Watergate was forty years ago, let's modernize. I recommend we call this "Gruber-ghazi"

[ElNono]

Yes. Millions of dollars in consulting fees to write a piece of legislation that he then was then paid to tout as if he was an independent economic expert.

So what's the charge? Misrepresentation? He is an economic expert, he gets paid to teach and express his opinion. So do a lot of experts in a lot of fields. What's illegal about that?


If you won't concede Obamacare qualifies as unique in the history of Congressional acts then, we may as well disagree and move on.

Move on it is.

[ElNono]

I don't see how there is criminality. Obamacare was misrepresented by politicians but you could say that about most legislation. I don't see Gruber's comments as anything we didn't already know. And it's not like Americans were actually tricked, cnn polling had 59% opposing it just prior to passage and the law has been pretty much underwater ever since.

Exactly. I guess Gruber is 'guilty' of just saying it out loud. I don't think that's illegal though.

[Yonivore]

So what's the charge? Misrepresentation? He is an economic expert, he gets paid to teach and express his opinion. So do a lot of experts in a lot of fields. What's illegal about that?
Well, in venues when he was expressing his expertise about Obamacare, he failed to disclose his involvement in its crafting.

Look, it's probably more likely he's exposed to civil litigation but, I'm hoping he's run through the ringer a few times. Does anyone know if he testified before Congress during the Obamacare deliberations? And, if so, did he advance any of the lies there?


Move on it is.
Very well.

[ElNono]

Well, in venues when he was expressing his expertise about Obamacare, he failed to disclose his involvement in its crafting.

Look, it's probably more likely he's exposed to civil litigation but, I'm hoping he's run through the ringer a few times. Does anyone know if he testified before Congress during the Obamacare deliberations? And, if so, did he advance any of the lies there?

I think he'll be fine. Time will tell.

[Yonivore]

I think he'll be fine. Time will tell.
Yep. It always does.

[Yonivore]

Just when you thought he'd fade away...


Policy Brief
Universal Health Insurance Coverage:
Progress & Issues

Jonathan Gruber (https://www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/cpr/events/cpr_lectures/pb41.pdf)

First, there is nothing affordable about the Affordable Care Act


“The problem is it starts to go hand in hand with the mandate; you can’t mandate insurance that’s not affordable. This is going to be a major issue,” Gruber admitted in an October 2, 2009 lecture, the transcript of which comprised the policy brief.

“So what’s different this time? Why are we closer than we’ve ever been before? Because there are no cost controls in these proposals. Because this bill’s about coverage. Which is good! Why should we hold 48 million uninsured people hostage to the fact that we don’t yet know how to control costs in a politically acceptable way? Let’s get the people covered and then let’s do cost control.”

Second, Death Panels:


“The real substance of cost control is all about a single thing: telling patients they can’t have something they want. It’s about telling patients, ‘That surgery doesn’t do any good, so if you want it you have to pay the full cost.’”

“There’s no reason the American health care system can’t be, ‘You can have whatever you want, you just have to pay for it.’ That’s what we do in other walks of life. We don’t say everyone has to have a large screen TV. If you want a large screen TV, you have to pay for it. Basically the notion would be to move to a level where everyone has a solid basic insurance level of coverage. Above that people pay on their own, without tax-subsidized dollars, to buy a higher level of coverage.”

[boutons_deux]

GruberGateGhazi!

[ChumpDumper]

Just when you thought he'd fade away...


Policy Brief
Universal Health Insurance Coverage:
Progress & Issues

Jonathan Gruber (https://www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/cpr/events/cpr_lectures/pb41.pdf)

First, there is nothing affordable about the Affordable Care ActFirst things first, but it's not like decent coverage was affordable before -- nor were any Republicans offering any solutions.

Other than the mandate they came up with and were for before they were against it, that is.



Second, Death Panels:Again, you made it up. You're just going to call anything death panels.

[Spurminator]

It's so unfortunate that the ACA replaced an affordable Healthcare system where all procedures, even unnecessary ones, were covered at no additional cost. Those were the days...

[ChumpDumper]

Right? The ACA acts like -- GASP -- health insurance!

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100217032650/unanything/images/f/f9/Dramatic-Prairie-Dog.gif

[CosmicCowboy]

Considering 85% is subsidized it acts more like an expansion of Medicaid. I'm not saying that's bad but just be intellectually honest. The young healthy people that were supposed to overpay to subsidize it rationally decided not to play.

[boutons_deux]

DeathPanelsGhaziGate!

[boutons_deux]

Considering 85% is subsidized it acts more like an expansion of Medicaid. I'm not saying that's bad but just be intellectually honest. The young healthy people that were supposed to overpay to subsidize it rationally decided not to play.

more CC bullshit. ACA didn't young people, it needed healthy people.

so much of y'alls talking points were destroyed years ago.

plenty of red-state poor people will get sicker, 1000s will die, for want of Medicaid expansion. THAT's the real death panel angle, from THE RED STATES