Obamacare cost...

[Moliere]

Ted and Barack are like two peas in a pod.

They share very similar backgrounds. Foreign born. Lawyers. No business experience. Little political experience before running for POTUS (assuming Rafael runs). Somewhat extreme positions on issues.

[VirginiaCougar]

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.

It is best to ignore Imanihonjin. I made a decision to not directly address him a few years ago on CB and have continued it here. I like to debate ideas but he has a history of makes things very personal, offers disconnected irrational arguments, and has been less than honest in our dealings. He has gone so far as doing a little internet stalking to track down who I was and implicitly threaten me due to my current position. I enjoy engaging people with a diversity of opinions but as tempting as it is at times, I personally have a policy of never engaging him. It simply isn't worth it. I don't mind disagreement, but in his case and given what has happened I wish I could block his posts and that he couldn't see mine. It would be best if that were possible.

[imanihonjin]

It is best to ignore Imanihonjin. I made a decision to not directly address him a few years ago on CB and have continued it here. I like to debate ideas but he has a history of makes things very personal, offers disconnected irrational arguments, and has been less than honest in our dealings. He has gone so far as doing a little internet stalking to track down who I was and implicitly threaten me due to my current position. I enjoy engaging people with a diversity of opinions but as tempting as it is at times, I personally have a policy of never engaging him. It simply isn't worth it. I don't mind disagreement, but in his case and given what has happened I wish I could block his posts and that he couldn't see mine. It would be best if that were possible.

I don't really care to get into a flame war where we can compare the size of our stones over the internet, but I will emphatically deny that I ever implicitly threatened you in any regard including "due to your current position" whatever that is supposed to mean.

So feel free to retract that BS.

[Uncle Ted]

It is best to ignore Imanihonjin. I made a decision to not directly address him a few years ago on CB and have continued it here. I like to debate ideas but he has a history of makes things very personal, offers disconnected irrational arguments, and has been less than honest in our dealings. He has gone so far as doing a little internet stalking to track down who I was and implicitly threaten me due to my current position. I enjoy engaging people with a diversity of opinions but as tempting as it is at times, I personally have a policy of never engaging him. It simply isn't worth it. I don't mind disagreement, but in his case and given what has happened I wish I could block his posts and that he couldn't see mine. It would be best if that were possible.

I don't really care to get into a flame war where we can compare the size of our stones over the internet, but I will emphatically deny that I ever implicitly threatened you in any regard including "due to your current position" whatever that is supposed to mean.

So feel free to retract that BS.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think someone else pointed this out, but you can look at the defunding threat in another light. Cruz/Lee are filibustering the house bill to try to get the Senate majority to ensure the defunding Obamacare portion of the House bill is not taken out. Of course, they'll fail. But the argument can also be made that the Democrats are willing to let a default occur in order to save an unpopular bill that seems to be have detrimental economic effects.

You've also totally mischaracterized the Obamacare dependency argument. It's not that everyone's going to like Obamacare, it's that it will create another entitlement/dependency at a time when entitlements are becoming dangerously expensive.

Your point on the ACA being basically the same as the Heritage foundation proposal is not true. Have you bothered to look at it? First, the proposal was issued in 1990, not in response to Hillarycare. Second, there was no employer mandate. Third, it called for giving the same tax advantages for insurance purchased by individuals as those provided to employers. Finally, it called for other mechanisms whereby individuals receiving medical treatment would have more skin in the game and inject more market forces into a sector that's plagued with monopoly pricing and costs that are widely spread out to employers and taxpayers. When you diffuse costs to everyone and couple that with a concentrated financial benefit to a confined class/interest group, what's going to happen is what's happening in the health care field now. Namely, health care providers continue to increase prices irrespective of what a real market would dictate and in turn health insurance companies raise premiums on everyone -- concentrated economic benefit and diffused costs.

Control over costs are a few steps removed from the person actually receiving the care. The only control over it was when employers finally decided that health insurance had gotten out of control. Around a decade ago, employers started increasingly not providing health insurance. My dad got rid of his company's health insurance and gave everyone a raise and told them they can go out and buy their own. He asks his employees periodically whether they actually went out and bought health insurance and the answer is almost always the same -- no.

The emphasis of Obamacare was coverage, not cost control. The cost control measures that are in the legislation have been tried and are ineffective.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

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?

Can you provide any shred of proof that Barack Obama in 2009 and 2010 was interested in what the Republicans had to say? What in this guy's background and behavior, at least until before he had his ass handed to him in the 2010 midterms, suggests that he had any interest in countenancing anything from the Republicans. A few days after being inaugurated he told Eric Cantor that the Democrats' ideas were going to be passed because he "won and elections have consequences."

I'm all ears here. In response to the Scott Brown election, did the Democrats make any overtures to the Republicans about a compromise?

[imanihonjin]

Can you provide any shred of proof that Barack Obama in 2009 and 2010 was interested in what the Republicans had to say? What in this guy's background and behavior, at least until before he had his ass handed to him in the 2010 midterms, suggests that he had any interest in countenancing anything from the Republicans. A few days after being inaugurated he told Eric Cantor that the Democrats' ideas were going to be passed because he "won and elections have consequences."

I'm all ears here. In response to the Scott Brown election, did the Democrats make any overtures to the Republicans about a compromise?

I can already tell you what the answer will be.....well the republicans had already made it clear that they weren't going to deal with Obama so Obama decided not to engage them.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I can already tell you what the answer will be.....well the republicans had already made it clear that they weren't going to deal with Obama so Obama decided not to engage them.

Which is total bullshit. The GOP was in a mild and meek state after the 2008 election. The tea party bogeyman wasn't around as the scapegoat. Eric Cantor went to that meeting prepared with an outline of GOP policy hopes/positions. Obama proceeded to tell the GOP participants that he didn't give a shit what they had to say or wanted.

This argument bandied about that poor ol centrist Obama just can't make any headway with the recalcitrant GOP is nonsense -- at least in the sense that Barack Obama can be described as a centrist. And his and the Democrats' conduct in 2009 and 2010 tells you everything you need to know on this point. If the Democrats were operating out of some centrist position at that time, why did Massachusetts, of all places, repudiate them when they elected Scott Brown. In response to that rather alarming election, why didn't they take a step back? Why were the 2010 elections a landslide from state legislatures through federal congressional races? Is the argument here that the voters in Massachusetts in January 2010 and nationwide in November 2010 a bunch of nutjobs?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Ronald Reagan worked with Tip O'Neill. Bill Clinton worked with Newt Gingrich. But poor ol' Obama can't work with John Boehner?

Look at his speech right after the Navy yard shooting, is this a guy that appears like the great compromiser?

[VirginiaCougar]

Ronald Reagan worked with Tip O'Neill. Bill Clinton worked with Newt Gingrich. But poor ol' Obama can't work with John Boehner?

Look at his speech right after the Navy yard shooting, is this a guy that appears like the great compromiser?

Well, Obama has been able to work with Boehner. They agreed on a grand compromise and on a number of other things, only to have the tea party wing of the GOP throw their own leader under the bus and drive back and forth over him a few times. I don't blame Boehner - he has tried. I don't blame Obama, he has tried and has been willing.

[Pelado]

VC - Like CMBF, I'm unsure how/why you continually suggest that Obama and the Democrats were seeking Republican buy-in on ACA. The first two years were trademarked with Democrats passing pretty much what they wanted with not only no Republican input, but with virtually no concern for Republican input. Obama did work (ineffectively) on the "grand bargain" with Boehner, but that was only after huge Republican gains in the midterms. Prior to that, Obama didn't even have Boehner's phone number:

The failure of Obama to connect with Boehner was vaguely reminiscent of another phone call late in the evening of Election Day 2010, after it became clear that the Republicans would take control of the House, making Boehner Speaker of the House.

Nobody in the Obama orbit could even find the soon-to-be-speaker's phone number, Woodward reports. A Democratic Party aide finally secured it through a friend so the president could offer congratulations.

Intriguingly, Cantor and Biden frequently had "private asides" after larger meetings, according to Woodward. After one of them, Woodward writes that Biden told Cantor: "You know, if I were doing this, I'd do it totally different."

"Well, if I were running the Republican conference, I'd do it totally different," Cantor replied, according to Woodward.

Woodward writes: "They agreed that if they were in charge, they could come to a deal."

With the president taking charge, though, Obama found that he had little history with members of Congress to draw on. His administration's early decision to forego bipartisanship for the sake of speed around the stimulus bill was encapsulated by his then-chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel: "We have the votes. F--- 'em," he's quoted in the book as saying.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bob-w...inglePage=true

The entire trajectory of the administration -- frustrated hope, unrealized change -- was foreshadowed in its first week:

The president called a budget meeting. Representative Eric Cantor, then the minority whip, expressed skepticism about the president’s stimulus plan.

Obama lectured the young Republican: “Elections have consequences. And Eric, I won.” Three days later the president introduced an $800 million stimulus bill.

“We have the votes,” White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said, adding a trademark expletive.

And away they went -- and by “away,” we mean the two sides moved, furiously and fast, away from each other. The administration pressed ahead. Cantor insisted Obama’s plan wouldn’t get a single Republican vote. It didn’t.

“Obama had demonstrated that he believed he didn’t need any other input,” Woodward writes. “The Republicans were outsiders, outcasts. The president and the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate would go it alone. There was no compromise.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...et-debate.html

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Well, Obama has been able to work with Boehner. They agreed on a grand compromise and on a number of other things, only to have the tea party wing of the GOP throw their own leader under the bus and drive back and forth over him a few times. I don't blame Boehner - he has tried. I don't blame Obama, he has tried and has been willing.

Why were Tip O'Neill and Newt Gingrich able to reign in the far left/far right factions of their parties?

The foundational question for me is why there's a tea party in the first place. I blame Obama and the Democrats' antics in 2009 and 2010. There was no far left equivalent in response to Reagan and there was no tea party in response to Bill Clinton.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

VC - Like CMBF, I'm unsure how/why you continually suggest that Obama and the Democrats were seeking Republican buy-in on ACA. The first two years were trademarked with Democrats passing pretty much what they wanted with not only no Republican input, but with virtually no concern for Republican input. Obama did work (ineffectively) on the "grand bargain" with Boehner, but that was only after huge Republican gains in the midterms. Prior to that, Obama didn't even have Boehner's phone number:





http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bob-w...inglePage=true



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...et-debate.html

Barack Obama alienated a huge part of the country in those two years.

A grand compromise with John Boehner isn't enough to win it back. The Tea Party exists because Barack Obama and the Democrats were gaping assholes first when passing the stimulus bill, and second when they passed Obamacare.

A president has to at least make an effort at the appearance that he's the president for the entire country and not just favored constituencies. Bush was obviously not beloved, but he made efforts in the form of the Medicare drug benefit, No Child Left Behind, and funding for combating AIDS in Africa. Barack Obama makes speeches about punishing domestic enemies to his policies.

[Maximus]

Well, Obama has been able to work with Boehner. They agreed on a grand compromise and on a number of other things, only to have the tea party wing of the GOP throw their own leader under the bus and drive back and forth over him a few times. I don't blame Boehner - he has tried. I don't blame Obama, he has tried and has been willing.

obama hasnt been willing to do anything significant.

[Uncle Ted]

obama hasnt been willing to do anything significant.

I don't know about you but I thought that more than $1 trillion "economic stimulus" spending was pretty darn significant. That was a lot of money. And if he had spent a lot more it might have even worked. He was willing to do that. Of course, it would have completely killed our credit rating but who cares about that anyway. It is not like the USA is like Greece and can't print its own money.