Obamacare cost...

[Uncle Ted]

1) First is the collective confirmation bias of right wing infosphere where they continue to pass around disjointed and often false "facts." You see many of these infosphere posts throughout offering a lot of less than accurate info. I was going to respond to many of them individually, but there are so many. Just two examples: One special soul here argued that ACA was going to give 35 million Americans "free health care." (Just like their "Obamaphone" which really should be their "Reagan/Bush phone", but that is a different falsehood for another thread) It is true that a small percentage of that 35 million will receive subsidies that come close to "free." But overall, most of those 35 million will be buying insurance that was previously too expensive or they were free-riders. That is the purpose of the exchanges, and initial objective evidence is that health insurance on the exchanges will be less expensive than it would have been otherwise. ACA is expanding access as intended.

Yes, we should rename the Obamaphone to the ReaganPhone. It has a nice ring to it and Reagan was a kick *ss president. Now who said that 34 million americans would get "free health care"? President Obama just said it would be as cheap as my cell phone bill for my entire family. God bless President Obama. Hmm, if my ReaganPhone is free...

[byu71]

Its Ironic (Summon DDD for confirmation) to listen to Blow-hard Reid talk about wasting time talk while he goes on and one after Cruz.. What a buffoon...

Reid is an embarassment to Senators. How someone who is indeed a buffoon rises to the level in the Senate he has is an indication of how inadequate the people who seek and get elected to office are.

[dabrockster]

One of the things Cruz got in during his 21 hour speech. Bednight story to his kids back in Texas. His own version of Green Eggs and Ham.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-a-senate-ham/

That Cruz-I-am
That Cruz-I-am
I do not like
That Cruz-I-am.

Do you like Obamacare?
I do not like it, Cruz-I-am.
I do not like Obamacare.

I will not fund it, here or there.
I will not fund it anywhere.
I run against Obamacare.
I run against it, Cruz-I-am.

Would you fund it in the House?
Run against Bill Clinton’s spouse?
I would not fund it in the House.
Bring it on, Bill Clinton’s spouse.

Filibuster with Mike Lee?
Bring down the economy?
I’ll be POTUS — You will see.
Come and join my Tea Party.

Not with Mike Lee.
Not my GOP.
Not with this House.
Not while I grouse.

I put the Senate in a box.

Mitch McConnell — he’s out-foxed.
I’m ready for that big White House.
I’ll decimate Bill Clinton’s spouse.
I do not like Dems here or there.
I do not like them anywhere.

A train wreck! A train wreck!
Could you, would you, wreck this train?
Mr. Harvard Law School brain?

Watch me! Watch me!
Wreck this train.
Obamacare will be my gain!
My colleagues hate me — I don’t care.
Harry Reid — tear out your hair.
I will stand there all night long.
Watch me, I am never wrong.

You do not like it.
So you say.
Try it, try it,
And you may.

Say!
I like Obamacare!
I do, I like it, Cruz-I-am.
It will get me out of Texas!
So I’ll argue that it wrecks us.
I do so like Obamacare.
It will get me everywhere!
Thank you.
Thank you,
Cruz-I-am.

[Uncle Ted]

One of the things Cruz got in during his 21 hour speech. Bednight story to his kids back in Texas. His own version of Green Eggs and Ham.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-a-senate-ham/

LOL. Cruz shouldn't give up his day job to write children books.

Hey, so did Rafael, I mean Ted, and Barack room together back at Harvard law school? Was Ted a Community Organizing too before he became a senator? Ted and Barack are like two peas in a pod.

[imanihonjin]

It is quite the comedy routine going on right now here among the right-wingers and in the public sphere as well. I will reiterate again that ACA has many problems. I agree with an earlier post that it doesn't do enough to reduce costs while increasing access. I do this as it is the usual response to saying anything against the collective mother of all childish fits regarding ACA is binary, black and white thinking (if you don't absolutely hate and loath ACA you must be a socialist marxist that absolutely loves it).

But the comedy is undeniable and it is worth noting a few of the highlights.

1) First is the collective confirmation bias of right wing infosphere where they continue to pass around disjointed and often false "facts." You see many of these infosphere posts throughout offering a lot of less than accurate info. I was going to respond to many of them individually, but there are so many. Just two examples: One special soul here argued that ACA was going to give 35 million Americans "free health care." (Just like their "Obamaphone" which really should be their "Reagan/Bush phone", but that is a different falsehood for another thread) It is true that a small percentage of that 35 million will receive subsidies that come close to "free." But overall, most of those 35 million will be buying insurance that was previously too expensive or they were free-riders. That is the purpose of the exchanges, and initial objective evidence is that health insurance on the exchanges will be less expensive than it would have been otherwise. ACA is expanding access as intended.

All the evidence that is poring in is that insurance through the exchanges is more expensive than it WAS otherwise. See http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...rtner=yahootix

This latter point gets to a second example. Another post here referenced an op-ed (not an objective journalism piiece) arguing that everyone's health care was gong to increase a couple thousand dollars. The author of that op-ed rather deviously used a CBO number regarding new health care spending that he then divided across all Americans to come up with his figures. What he rather dishonestly didn't mention is that most of that new health care spending will come from those entering the system and paying premiums for the first time. That is a good portion of the new spending as is the new spending that will come form those now with insurance that will access health care when previously they didn't due to lack of insurance and cost. None of that has anything to do with your individual premiums, or the average Americans costs.

There are countless examples like this.

So the CBO stated that Obamacare was going to cause an increase of spending of about $650 billion over the next ten years. How can this simply be people paying premiums they weren't paying before? Presumably those premiums are to cover costs of medical care that would have happened regardless of whether the ACA was passed. Sure a percentage of that is profit for insurers but the vast majority of the new premiums will be spent to cover medical expenses that would have other wise occurred and therefore paid for by somebody. Also, the author noted that his calculation was a crude instrument to use.

2) Perhaps the darkest comedic element is the argument now embraced by the Cruz/Lee anti-Obamacare clan is this nasty logic: "Obamacare harms the American economy and so we will purposefully destroy the American economy by threatening default and similar scorched earth approaches to keep it from happening." The lighter comedic logic from this bunch includes, "Nobody likes Obamacare so we have to stop it now because once implemented people will like Obamacare too much to stop it." I find this last one funny for a couple of reasons. First, its wrong. If you look at the polls, it is very true that a majority of Americans dislike Obamacare. BUT, the breakdown of that opposition is what makes it interesting. In poll after poll what you find is that a good portion of the opposition to Obamacare comes from the fact that it doesn't go far enough - they want MORE. If you take those folks and add them to the support Obamacare numbers, you actually have a decent majority that would say ACA is at least a start. The other interesting elements in those polls is that when you offer those opposed to Obamacare a potential list of specific health care policies to replace ACA - guess what they pick? They pick a number of policies which are at the core of ACA (or others that go even farther). They don't chose what the Lee/Cruz crew want to do.

Again aren't you the man of compromise. Couldn't the argument be framed in the exact opposite way to show how elementary and ridiculous your argument is? Couldn't I say the Pelosi/Reid anti-American clan uses this nasty logic: "The lack of Obamacare harms the American economy and so unless all our demands are met we will purposefully destroy the American economy by threatening default and similar scorched earth approaches to keep Obamacare in place." Stupid, stupid, stupid.

As to the polls you claim support your position....all I can say is wow....if I just phrase a question the right way and if I take the bad parts of Obamacare and what people don't like out of it.....SURPRISE....they support it. You must be tired from all those mental gymnastics you have just subjected yourself to.

3) It remains true that ACA is almost exactly what Heritage put forward in the Clinton administration as a Republican alternative to Hillarycare. It speaks volumes about the radicalization of the GOP by the tea party folks to note that the exchanges, individual mandate, and many other key elements of ACA are Republican ideas (also defined as Conservative back then.) The reason Obama went with that approach is that he really wanted a bipartisan "big win" early in his administration. He wanted GOP involvement. The GOP decided not to participate AT ALL, in the process. They decided back then to not give Obama any big win even if it was just to tell your mother you loved her on Mother's Day. I know a couple of GOP Senators/Congressmen who wanted to participate in that process but were told by leadership they couldn't.

Isn't it funny that a set of Republican ideas of a few decades ago has now become Socialism/Marxism "shoved down our throats"" when it was the same group of folks who said that who refused to participate in making a better law than what we got?

I could go on, but that is enough of a diatribe for one morning.

Why do you keep saying this as if it is the republican's fault this horrible law was passed. No republican voted for it, so the dems wholly own the piece of garbage. I don't really give two hoots that the heritage foundation supported aspects of it or that some republicans supported it back in the day either.

[byu71]

LOL. Cruz shouldn't give up his day job to write children books.

Ted and Barack are like two peas in a pod.

They really are. They love to hear themselves talk. The only difference is the media covers for the the Presidents horse shit and they hammer Ted for his.

[Goatnapper'96]

I've never listened to a word of Hannity, Beck, and all the right wingers. (I have read Beck's conversion story, and I listened to Rush a few times about 10 years ago when I was driving through the Mojave Desert and couldnt get any other station). I have no idea what they say from day to day. So I am always surprised when VirgCoug attributes something I post in this thread to the "right wing infosphere." As if no one could come to a conservative conclusion unless it was spoon fed to them by those fascist commentators. And, true liberal that he is, I am not to blame for my conservative leanings-- it's really all the fault of the right wing conspiracy that brain washes me. I am the ultimate victim here, let me keep some of my tax dollars to pay for my recovery.

Virginia is a broken record arguing against something that doesn't exist here. Yes, the ACA has some serious issues but by damn the real problem is the circus of Mike Lee and Ted Cruz!

I think the ACA is a bigger problem than either Cruz or Lee, until the country wants to deal with problems like adults it will always be providing a stage for the morons.

[VirginiaCougar]

I've never listened to a word of Hannity, Beck, and all the right wingers. (I have read Beck's conversion story, and I listened to Rush a few times about 10 years ago when I was driving through the Mojave Desert and couldnt get any other station). I have no idea what they say from day to day. So I am always surprised when VirgCoug attributes something I post in this thread to the "right wing infosphere." As if no one could come to a conservative conclusion unless it was spoon fed to them by those fascist commentators. And, true liberal that he is, I am not to blame for my conservative leanings-- it's really all the fault of the right wing conspiracy that brain washes me. I am the ultimate victim here, let me keep some of my tax dollars to pay for my recovery.

It is interesting to hear this argument. Almost everyone on the right likes to deny ever listening to Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, etc. Many that do are ashamed that they do, it seems. I am not accusing you specifically of that, but it does happen often.

The deeper problem of this infosphere is how these talking points I hear from the right come verbatim from a very broad range of ideological media outlets. It goes far beyond those guys. You can generally tell the difference between someone who is conservative (which is fine) thinking through a position on their own, and those that state again verbatim those talking points. It also isn't that your positions aren't yours but that is the very nature of confirmation bias. If you read and acquire information from that much larger list of ideological media sites, they confirm what you already believe. Quite often that means adopting the language, not always intentionally, from that confirmation.

It also represents the real danger of those sources. By confirming what you inherently want to believe, individuals never think more broadly, they never have to consider dissonant "information" that contradicts or complicates an issue for which the ideology offers a clear binary (black and white, right or wrong) answer.

Case in point is you calling me the "true liberal" that I must be. That dichotomy of "you must agree with this new conservatism/libertarianism or you are 'true liberal'" isn't true, but it does come straight from that infosphere. I really am not that liberal, but within that comfortable information/ideological realm - that is what I must be. It is also reinforced by you saying that I define all those guys as "fascist." That is a defense mechanism to the cognitive dissonance coming if one sees information outside the box they conveniently provide. I've never called those guys fascist here, nor do I think that most of them are. The discussion of "ultimate victim" is another perfect example of this process I am describing - it is another one of those talking points. The truth is that taxes have been down for most Americans throughout the entire Obama administration. Doesn't mean we can't talk taxes, but the talking point argument that taxes are way up comes incorrectly from the infosphere which has to keep the ideology pure.

It is for these reasons that I find that infosphere so harmful. It is broad and pervasive, its influences going far beyond Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck. Now the left does attempt the same thing. Race is a good example. They see and try to define everything as racism. If there were folks like that on CS, I am sure they would be just as mad at me. I think they are wrong as well. The right-wing response to the racism is in everything is to argue that there is never racism - it is dead. You see both extremes in Zimmerman, the Birthers and countless other cases. The truth is much more complex. There is still a lot of racism in American society but not everything is racist. Yes, the Birther movement had a lot of racism within it and its arguments but not all tea-partiers are racist.

[VirginiaCougar]

Yes, the ACA has some serious issues but by damn the real problem is the circus of Mike Lee and Ted Cruz!

Yes.... Seems quite clear to me, across a myriad of issues.

I also completely agree with you regarding acting like adults, although we would often differ on who acts like small children more often than others, and how morons currently have the stage.

[LA Ute]

I've never listened to a word of Hannity, Beck, and all the right wingers. (I have read Beck's conversion story, and I listened to Rush a few times about 10 years ago when I was driving through the Mojave Desert and couldnt get any other station). I have no idea what they say from day to day. So I am always surprised when VirgCoug attributes something I post in this thread to the "right wing infosphere." As if no one could come to a conservative conclusion unless it was spoon fed to them by those fascist commentators. And, true liberal that he is, I am not to blame for my conservative leanings-- it's really all the fault of the right wing conspiracy that brain washes me. I am the ultimate victim here, let me keep some of my tax dollars to pay for my recovery.

By the way, virtually no one in the health care industry thinks the ACA was good legislation, and virtually everyone recognizes that the multitude of serious flaws in it will take years and years to work out. Those on the provider side are hunkering down to be ready for whatever form the law finally takes (no one knows) and are simultaneously re-organizing everything about how they operate in an effort to be as nimble as possible when it finally becomes clear what the law will actually be. Meanwhile the health insurance markets are being turned upside down. No one who actually has to live with the new law is paying attention to the political shenanigans in Washington. They're watching the regulations that are pouring out every day and trying to figure them out. If Congress really wanted to help they'd delay implementation and try to fix the thing instead of leaving it as a work in progress.

[imanihonjin]

It is interesting to hear this argument. Almost everyone on the right likes to deny ever listening to Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, etc. Many that do are ashamed that they do, it seems. I am not accusing you specifically of that, but it does happen often.

The deeper problem of this infosphere is how these talking points I hear from the right come verbatim from a very broad range of ideological media outlets. It goes far beyond those guys. You can generally tell the difference between someone who is conservative (which is fine) thinking through a position on their own, and those that state again verbatim those talking points. It also isn't that your positions aren't yours but that is the very nature of confirmation bias. If you read and acquire information from that much larger list of ideological media sites, they confirm what you already believe. Quite often that means adopting the language, not always intentionally, from that confirmation.

It also represents the real danger of those sources. By confirming what you inherently want to believe, individuals never think more broadly, they never have to consider dissonant "information" that contradicts or complicates an issue for which the ideology offers a clear binary (black and white, right or wrong) answer.

Case in point is you calling me the "true liberal" that I must be. That dichotomy of "you must agree with this new conservatism/libertarianism or you are 'true liberal'" isn't true, but it does come straight from that infosphere. I really am not that liberal, but within that comfortable information/ideological realm - that is what I must be. It is also reinforced by you saying that I define all those guys as "fascist." That is a defense mechanism to the cognitive dissonance coming if one sees information outside the box they conveniently provide. I've never called those guys fascist here, nor do I think that most of them are. The discussion of "ultimate victim" is another perfect example of this process I am describing - it is another one of those talking points. The truth is that taxes have been down for most Americans throughout the entire Obama administration. Doesn't mean we can't talk taxes, but the talking point argument that taxes are way up comes incorrectly from the infosphere which has to keep the ideology pure.

It is for these reasons that I find that infosphere so harmful. It is broad and pervasive, its influences going far beyond Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck. Now the left does attempt the same thing. Race is a good example. They see and try to define everything as racism. If there were folks like that on CS, I am sure they would be just as mad at me. I think they are wrong as well. The right-wing response to the racism is in everything is to argue that there is never racism - it is dead. You see both extremes in Zimmerman, the Birthers and countless other cases. The truth is much more complex. There is still a lot of racism in American society but not everything is racist. Yes, the Birther movement had a lot of racism within it and its arguments but not all tea-partiers are racist.

Let me boil this tripe down to one simple sentence for all of ya'll.....If you agree with VC you are a deep thinking and reflective person whose opinion should be valued, if you disagree with VC it is only because of Hannlinbeck and you are incapable of rational thinking.

You're welcome.

[woot]

Let me boil this tripe down to one simple sentence for all of ya'll.....If you agree with VC you are a deep thinking and reflective person whose opinion should be valued, if you disagree with VC it is only because of Hannlinbeck and you are incapable of rational thinking.

You're welcome.

VC overstates his case a bit, I think, but the next time you offer anything of substance will be the first. Do you ever tire of your sarcasm and strawman beatings? Of being an abrasive asshole with nothing to offer but mindless petulance? Because I do.

[Katy Lied]

The deeper problem of this infosphere is how these talking points I hear from the right come verbatim from a very broad range of ideological media outlets. It goes far beyond those guys. You can generally tell the difference between someone who is conservative (which is fine) thinking through a position on their own, and those that state again verbatim those talking points. It also isn't that your positions aren't yours but that is the very nature of confirmation bias. If you read and acquire information from that much larger list of ideological media sites, they confirm what you already believe. Quite often that means adopting the language, not always intentionally, from that confirmation.

I kind of agree with this, but the language is so broad and some of the words I use are very commonplace and cannot be attributed to one or another right wing source. For example, if I use the term "sore loserman," then it is probable that I got it from from a right wing outlet, either directly or indirectly from someone's twitter feed, etc, (as you have pointed out). However, if I use the term "true liberal," that's too broad to be excluded from coincidental use, even if someone like Rush Limbaugh champions its usage.

Also some terms are picked up by the other side and then migrate into a neutral position, like the term "Obamacare'" which is now used widely to mean the ACA with no bias attached.

Most of my beliefs comes from neoclassical economics, which I've been trained in, so am biased about. I would argue that the root of all conservatism comes from this study of neoclassical economics, which permeates the view of everyone who has been trained in it. (Maybe with a pound of religion, and a dash of Weber and Puritanism included in the mix). This ranges from people who dish it daily for profit, to the Wall Street Journal/The Economist, to someone who learned it in college 30 years ago. This is the glue that holds conservatism together. You can only make up slogans and shout epithets at The Other for so long, before you create a vacuum that ultimately slows and dies. The stubbornness with which many conservatives cling to their ideology is more deeply rooted than simple right wing slogans.

[VirginiaCougar]

It was kind of nice that CSPAN was showing Mike and Ted's Excellent Adventure this morning instead of the crap they normally show...

Talking about things like actually creating a federal budget is so boring.

I grant you that it was entertaining.

[imanihonjin]

VC overstates his case a bit, I think, but the next time you offer anything of substance will be the first. Do you ever tire of your sarcasm and strawman beatings? Of being an abrasive asshole with nothing to offer but mindless petulance? Because I do.

Oh noes....the man on the internet is mad at me. Feel free to disregard my posts if it tires you so much. Oh the humanity.