Look, I hope the GOP is able to come up with a better, cheaper version of healthcare that covers everyone, as much as possible. I hope they can fix the problems that do exist in the ACA as it exists. That would be nice.
But on what basis should anyone believe that they can do so?
Saying, "I really, really, REALLY hate Obamacare! It's a doodyhead plan!" is not the same as actually having a rational, well-thought-out, workable solution.
Basing a "plan" (in this case, repealing the ACA) on a hope and hatred of the old way is not a plan, it's silly, childish, wishful thinking.
Same for Trump and "Russia didn't do it! I don't believe the intelligence community and their data!"
That's fine for him to say it, but based on what? What research has he done? What operatives in the field studying data can he produce? He says he "knows things" but what? He isn't saying what he "knows..."
Saying, "I really, really, REALLY don't want to believe our intelligence community" is not the same
as having rational, well-researched, data-based opinions.
This is the problem with many in the modern GOP and, frankly, many in modern conservatism, unfortunately. They do not operate upon data and research, but on hatred of something based upon fake news and no news and wishful thinking.
It's childish and ridiculous and has no place in a rational government, flawed though it may be.
I say this not to insult all conservatives but to appeal to the best in all of us: We can't operate on wishful thinking and empty claims and fake news. Let us join together and insist upon not repealing one existing and working (if flawed) plan on the hope that maybe, somewhere out there, something might exist that is better. IF a better plan can be envisioned and spelled out and considered rationally, put it out there. But until such time as that happens, do not even speak of repealing what you have no plan to replace.
This is something that surely we all can agree with and rally around, yes?
68 comments:
You make some fairly dubious presumptions, if not total falsehoods. But first, this:
"I say this not to insult all conservatives..."
Of course you are. It's what you do. That's OK. Demonizing the right without basis is what you lefties do. You're declaring that conservatives aren't adult in their positions, and worse, basing that on nonsense that serves your presupposition.
ACA is crap. There's no way to sugarcoat it. It's done nothing it was allegedly intended to do, except for that which its defenders insisted wasn't sought...to force a situation for which only (at least in leftist minds) single payer is the solution.
-It has yet to insure all who are uninsured.
-It led to higher costs for insurance.
-It resulted in people losing plans with which they were relatively satisfied.
-It resulted in people losing their doctors.
-It resulted in lost jobs, and fewer hours for others.
-It unnecessarily burdened small business.
There's no way repeal wouldn't be a better deal, even without an alternative plan. As the following link explains, there's be relatively no dire consequences simply from repeal:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/12/will_obamacare_repeal_really_leave_30_million_without_insurance.html
Here's a salient portion of that link:
"Going a step farther, how many of the Obamacare enrollees will actually lose their insurance under a repeal and replace scenario?
Who best to answer this than Jonathan Gruber, the MIT professor and architect of Obamacare? In case you've forgotten him, he is the one who praised "the stupidity of the American voter" for helping pass Obamacare into law.
Gruber has a new study saying, "Roughly two-thirds of new Medicaid enrollees in 2014 were eligible for the program under previous state eligibility criteria – meaning that they were not made eligible by the ACA." This means that it wasn't Obamacare that made these new enrollees eligible; they just, for whatever reason, never signed up for a program they were entitled to all along."
Actual adults, of the type you aren't even sharp enough to justify pretending you are one, understand that this Act solved nothing and instead caused problems of all sorts. As such, actual adults fully understand that repeal alone improves a great deal. Actual adults recognize that the problems this gov't boondoggle failed to correct were largely the result of previous gov't interference in the health care world. As such, actual adults know that if gov't interference is causing problems, the problems go away if the interference ceases.
continued...
And yeah, when Gruber was speaking of the stupidity of the American people, he was referring to those like you. Actual adults rejected Hillarcare when that crap sandwich was being offered, and actual adults did NOT want to wait until ACA was passed to see what was in it.
Full disclosure...I am aware of a "replacement" being put forth by the GOP. It sucks, too. It is, as one conservative put it, Obamacare 2.0.
By this point you might imagine that I support no replacement at all, and only full repeal. If true, it is the first time you understood me at first blush. It's my position because as an actual adult, I know that the common complaints about health care pre-ACA were those that could easily be "fixed" in a variety of ways without the government taking over. Those remedies will still work, but not with Democrat policy. Democrat policy is how we got in this mess.
But getting back to your stupidity and willful ignorance of right-wing ideas, there has always been more than merely "Basing a "plan" (in this case, repealing the ACA) on a hope and hatred of the old way". But you're too much of a hack to even take the time to find out what is proposed.
And here's something else actual adults know but can't get through to those like yourself who are not even reasonable facsimiles of adults: there is no obligation or duty of the federal government to provide in any way that everyone should be covered. It is the obligation of the federal government to stay as far out of the private affairs of the private sector so that the free market can operate effectively. That effective operation will resolve most of the legitimate complaints about health care that existed before ACA, because that's what happens in the private sector. Problems get solved because that's how business grows...by solving problems. It's how the economy expands, which leads to fewer people being unable to afford insurance and health care costs made cheaper by the effects of actual market place competition.
Now let's move on to Russia. Trump's position that Russia didn't help him win is not the same as saying that Russia isn't involved in hacking. Only an idiot would pretend that Russia, China, N. Korea and others wouldn't try hacking into our systems. But it's hardly "adult" to pretend that it had anything to do with Clinton losing the election. SHE is the reason Trump won. OBAMA is the reason Trump won. THE STATUS QUO is the reason Trump won. Anyone who thinks that those bad actors wouldn't prefer another marshmallow in the White House like the one that's there now has no business saying we need to come together as adults. So when "adults" like you can actually find someone who voted for Trump because Putin told him to do so, that'll be the day.
So your claim that conservatives don't operate on data is itself a claim not based on any actual data. Said another way, you're freaking projecting.
The data shows that Obamacare isn't working at all. No one who wants to be regarded as an adult can pretend otherwise and no true adult would want any further gov't interference into an area not suited for gov't involvement. Just look at the VA and health care provided on those Indian reservations. Just note how those asshats that forced ACA on us aren't covered by ACA.
The ACA is a perfect example of "wishful thinking and empty claims and fake news." You're just not adult enough to admit it. Worse, you're not adult enough to pay attention to know it.
On Russia, Trump has said...
"It could be somebody else. And I also know things that other people don't know, and so they cannot be sure of the situation"
TRUMP is saying that the intel agencies don't know that it was Russia and the Intel sources say they do.
The difference? The intel agencies have a huge cast of employees and people in the field doing research with actual data, whereas Trump has said - with no back up - that he "knows things..."
MY point stands: IF Trump "knows things" (ie, has solid data that he can provide and can be verified by others) that says the Intel agencies are mistaken, he can provide it and it can be verified. He hasn't. Given the looooooong history of Trump making empty, ridiculously obviously false claims based on him "knowing" things, we have no reason to suspect he does know things based on data. He is an empty boaster. See his ~70-90% false claim rate.
So, the question is: Why would a decent and intelligent person defend Trump when his claim that the intel agencies are (or are possibly) mistaken, when he has provided no evidence that he has any data to support his empty claim?
I don't know the answer to that and can only assume you're willing to give a pass to an affirmed liar/false claim maker simply because he's on your side. What you have done is change the claim from "the intel agencies don't know about Russia" to "the hacking THAT DID happen in reality (contrary to what Trump has claimed) didn't have an affect on the election. That is a different claim than the one Trump is making.
Or is this one of those cases where Trump is using "hyperbole" and he shouldn't be taken literally, and that he actually means this other thing, different than what he actually said?
Of course, that is another claim that is not verified... IF Russia attempted to sway the election, on what data are you basing this claim? How do you know their real attempts to sway things didn't have an affect? Where is the data to support that claim? Or is it just a hunch on your part?
~Dan
On the ACA being repealed:
You claim that, in your hunch/opinion, things will be better if it's repealed, even with nothing to replace it. That is a fine hunch to have, but does the data support it?
First of all, there are many moving parts and unknowns here, we simply don't know what will happen if it is repealed/partially repealed/undermined. Having said that, here is what we know:
1. Today, "28 million Americans are uninsured, down from 41.3 million in 2013, due in large part to the Affordable Care Act." IF the ACA is repealed and those 28 million people lose their insurance (since repealing the ACA means that insurance is going away), then we know that 28 million citizens will lose this insurance. That is not nothing.
2. Can some of these find other insurance to replace it? We sure can hope so. But adults want to operate on plans and data, not hope and wishes.
3. "the Congressional Budget Office -- the nonpartisan number-crunching arm of Congress -- said that the number of additional Americans who would lose coverage or be unable to get it for the first time would start at 19 million in the first year and increase incrementally before leveling off to 24 million within a couple of years."
4. "The major sources of losses would include people no longer able to obtain Medicaid coverage under the law’s expansion, and people who would be unable to afford health insurance without the help of federal subsidies currently provided under the law."
5. "Other groups have come up with similar estimates for the uninsured. This year, the Urban Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation published a report projecting that 24 million additional people by 2021 would have lost coverage or be unable to find it. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a group that seeks to lower the federal deficit, projected that the number would be 23 million.
Meanwhile, a 2016 study by the Commonwealth Fund and the Rand Corp. calculated that even the most successful replacement scenario produced an increase in 15.6 million uninsured people, while the most pessimistic would lead to an additional 25.1 million uninsured Americans."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jan/05/what-would-be-impact-if-affordable-care-act-repeal/
So, while you can cite one guy cited in a conservative publication, I'm citing several non-partisan agencies who've done research into the topic. On what basis would any reasonable person accept one person's hunch over all these other agencies?
The point stands: IF you have nothing to replace the ACA, then it is the ultimate in stupidity and arrogance to repeal it or ask people to trust the GOP that, somehow, magically, miraculously, they will find a solution?
Magical thinking based on nothing but wishful thinking is not how an adult government should operate.
~Dan
Yes, government policy that doesn't align with reality or that ignores data is always problematic.
Of course simply cherry picking data in order to impose the vision of one side or the other isn't helpful either. Nor is conceiving legislation in partisan secrecy helpful.
I hope that we see things function differently going forward.
Re: Nothing to replace the ACA.
Here in the people's republic, we had a state system that covered everything thing P-BO care covers and didn't involve 60% increases in premiums and deductibles. Yet we were forced to abandon a working system in order to have P-BO care thrust on us. This desire to force a one size fits all (unless your a democrat interest group and can get waivers), top down, plan on places that didn't need it is reason enough to dismantle the problematic aspects of P-BO care.
Because any law conceived in partisan secrecy and birthed with lies must be a good thing, mustn't it?
"the Congressional Budget Office -- the nonpartisan number-crunching arm of Congress -- said that the number of additional Americans who would lose coverage or be unable to get it for the first time would start at 19 million in the first year and increase incrementally before leveling off to 24 million within a couple of years."
etc.
By all means, IF the GOP has something to actually replace it that covers people and does not result in these catastrophic losses, the GOP should put it out there.
Until such time, though, it is insanity to close with a half-witted hope that maybe something will show up to magically replace it.
Adults should not self govern based on magic thinking.
~Dan
And yes, creating laws in partisan secrecy and lies is a bad thing to do.
~Dan
If you're forced to buy a policy that has premiums that rise 60% in a year with a deductible that is so high as to be unmeetable, do you really have insurance?
I'm glad you can acknowledge the fact that the ACA was forced on the US through a process of partisan secrecy.
Sigh. I didn't agree to that. I agreed it's wrong to do that, not that the Dems did it. Read my words, please.
As to the high price some (relatively few?) have had to pay, as I said, I'm fine with the GOP developing a better plan if they can. I just insist on having something in place first before repealing the aca. Agreed?
Dan
I could be wrong, But I am unaware of anyone in the house, Senate, or future administration, who is advocating using magic to replace Obamacare.
Trump and many others have been whining loudly and pitifully for months/years that we "need to repeal the ACA!" Indeed, maybe you missed it, but the GOP has tried with some 60-ish votes to do just that? It was in the news and all.
At any rate, this drone of whining has gone on with nary a proposal of what to replace it with. To think that repealing the ACA without having aspelled-out replacement plan is an example of magic thinking. "If only we repeal this act, things will be OK..."
Adult governance requires a replacement plan.
I realize that there have been attempts to repeal, there have also been alternate plans proposed. But nowhere has anyone advocated magic or anything similar. The bigger question is why hadn't the P-BO administration done anything to fix the excessive price increases and the other problems caused by the ACA. I guess that you've been ok with the current "Ignore it and it'll go away." stance over the last 6 years.
Right now out state is considering millions of dollars in emergency payments to people who can't afford the insurance they're forced to buy, because the ACA won't let us actually fix the problem. This after millions wasted in just set up costs.
By all means let's keep things just the way they are until someone offers a perfect replacement.
It's like 1st aid, you stop the bleeding before you do anything else.
Again (and for the last time), by all means, the GOP should introduce a Trump care plan, if and when they develop one. But they shouldn't remove the heart from a patient asking the patient to trust that a replacement heart will magically appear.
Dan
So, you deny the data regarding passage of the ACA? Do you remember any GOP involvement at all in the drafting? Do you remember the GOP/public being told "You have to pass the bill to see what's in the bill."? Do you remember, "If you like your plan/Dr you can keep it/them."?
You call for using data, yet deny the facts.
As fir the "relatively few" with unaffordable mandatory plans, how many thousands/millions is enough to garner your sympathy? Why hasn't the current administration done anything to alleviate their suffering? They've been generous with waivers for their political supporters, why let this slide?
Again, your lack of awareness of the various plans already put forth by the GOP is concerning. In a federal system such as ours one completely consistent and constitutional approach would be to eliminate the federal government top down one size fits all approach and allow the states to design approaches that more closely fit their needs.
The problem you have is that no one is suggesting that P-BO care be instantly and totally repealed. Even if the repeal is passed, by all accounts it would be phased out gradually and replaced in such a way as to not cause nearly the disruption that implementing it did.
I've also heard, back to following data, that there is a move to slow down the process.
I can only assume that if they do we'll see a post congratulating them on doing what you think they should.
Oh, can you show me one actual quote from anyone suggesting magic as an option, or can you admit that you've chosen the word to be a pejorative?
When making government policy what's more important, data or accurate data?
I'm sure that you are aware of, and have done the research into, all of the Republican healthcare alternative plans that one finds with a simple Google search.
To answer the obvious 11:17 question: Accurate data.
To address your last comment, by all means, post a link to the news stories providing the details.
What I'm hearing (including from some Republicans, including Rand Paul) is that there IS no plan in place and that it would be stupid, magic thinking to suggest that simply repealing the ACA is a solution in and of itself.
And to answer another obvious question: No one is saying "let's use magic thinking." I'm using that term to describe the notion that we see too often of saying "let's repeal the ACA" as if that is a plan in and of itself.
One rational GOP fella was cited on NPR today (I forget who) saying that if you have a bridge collapsing, the first thing you do is secure the bridge. LATER, you might want to replace the bridge with other, better bridges, but the first thing you do is secure the existing bridge."
That is all I'm saying.
The rhetoric of the election season (according to Rand Paul and many reasonable conservative types, along with everyone else) was "REPEAL OBAMACARE! IT'S DOODY!!" with nary a suggestion of a replacement. THAT is what I'm objecting to. THAT thinking, repealing something necessary with nothing to replace it and hoping that the mere repeal will somehow magically make something better appear is what I'm warning against. As well as Paul and other reasonable conservatives.
That's all I'm saying.
~Dan
So, I'm back to my main point: IF the GOP can create a better program that covers as many or more people and do it at a lower cost for everyone, they should do so and they would be praised for doing so.
But, IF they could do it, then they should at least have a PLAN(S) in place to make it happen. They can't ask us to trust them and then repeal the ACA based on their assurance. That would be stupid.
What I expect we'll all see is that insurance rates have been raising for years thanks to capitalism, free enterprise and all that, and that the GOP will not be able to create a magic plan that covers everyone and does so for less. But if they can, God bless them, they should do so.
But in the meantime, for those people for whom the ACA IS working and making things better - in some cases, keeping them alive - we will not stand for it to be repealed on the basis of a vague promise that things will get better... somehow.
We want a plan.
You do not appear to have a problem with having a plan in place. If so, we're in agreement. If not, shame on you.
~Dan
Two quick points.
1. A quick google search came up with multiple articles from a variety of sources regarding GOP plans dating as far back as last June. If you really need me to google for you, I will but your track record of reading links isn't good and the fact that you didn't check the data before you made your claim doesn't bode well.
2. I note you haven't addressed the data showing the significant failures in the ACA and why the P-BO administration has been so unwilling to acknowledge and correct them.
I note that your concerns for the few for which the ACA is "working", overshadow the many it's punishing.
You'll have to take it up with Rand Paul and the other conservatives who've lately been saying, "We can't proceed without a plan."
This article BEGAN with the premise that there are some problems in the ACA. And why IS it that Obama isn't wanting to address the problems? Let me guess, because he is evil and you know somehow that it is his intention to provide subpar health insurance?
This gets back to the nutty premises that you all start with... it's not like any in the Dem side of things WANT to provide health care that has problems. It's that health care is a complicated issue with no easy answers. Something that the GOP is going to find out here soon. You know, when they start actually putting forth some comprehensive plans for even better healthcare options.
As to the "few" vs "the many..." do you have any data that shows that the ACA itself is not working for more than it is working? Do you have any data to show that it's actually the fault of the ACA (as compared to the free market allowing for prices to increase, as health care has been doing for decades now)...?
Or are you starting with an unsupported premise (as many on the right seem to be doing) that the ACA is causing more problems than it's solving and it is somehow something specific about the ACA that is causing it, as opposed to simple market forces that have been in play for decades?
My point remains: It is foolish to push to repeal "on day one" the ACA (as Trump et al have done, stupidly) when there is no plan to replace it.
It appears you can agree with my actual point so, perhaps you better quit while you're ahead (i.e., making sense).
~Dan
First, I apologize for balaboring the obvious, but we agree on two things as anyone reading this exchange should be able to grasp.
1. We agree that accurate data is helpful in making governmental decisions.
2. We agree that in general it's good to have a plan.
Now for what we disagree on. (I'm going to limit myself to one disagreement per comment.)
You have stated unequivocally that the GOP has no plan to replace P-BO care. This assertion is not supported by any actual data, in fact the data contradicts it.
You further have not addressed my contention that under our federal system of government, repealing P-BO care and allowing the states to come up with their own individual plans to provide health insurance or other means of paying for health care, is in fact a plan. Not only is it a plan, it is a plan which aligns with our constitution. This plan also has the benefit of acknowledging the reality that the best plan for AL is not necessarily the best plan for WY.
We also disagree on the quality of the data that P-BO care was based on. I'm going to demonstrate that there are 5 facets of P-BO care that were based on questionable data.
1. P-BO care will provide x million of the (40 million people without health insurance) some level of health insurance coverage. The fact is that many of those newly covered already qualified for some existing federal or state program but had chosen not to access those programs. Of course, the whole 40 million uninsured is a questionable bit of data as it included those temporarily uninsured, as well as those who chose not to insure.
2. Coverage for preexisting conditions. This is one that most people agree on at some level or another. The problem is that P-BO care demanded that states with working effective mechanisms for covering those with preexisting conditions abandon those existing successful programs and adopt a top down mandated one size fits all plan.
3. Allow kids to stay on parents health insurance until 26. I'm sure there may be some compelling reasons for this to be a thing, but seriously if a reasonably healthy and intelligent 26 year old is still dependent on their parents, there are bigger problems than health insurance. Of course the unintended consequence of this gem is that group plans that previously had paid for coverage for spouses and dependents now charge for those coverage which raises the costs to the insured.
4. "The average family will save $2,500 per year.". As we see nationwide increases of 40'65% per year over that last few years, and group plans increasing in cost with higher deductibles, I guess this one was wrong.
5. "If you like your plan you can keep it." Another one that has rather spectacularly not happened. The most egregious example is those who are younger who chose a low premium/high deductible "catastrophic" insurance plan who were quickly told that they would no longer have that choice as they had to by all sorts of coverage they didn't need or want in order to subsidize others. The other stupid one, the the fact that people who have no desire to be pregnant or no ability to be pregnant must carry (and pay for) pregnancy coverage.
6. "If you like your Dr. you can keep them.". Again, as peoples choices of plans were taken away, so were their choices of Dr.
The last three are really the key from a bad data standpoint. Given the fact the numerous people predicted exactly the results we've seen (contrary to the promises) that leaves us with two options in assessing the drafters of the bill.
1. They somehow got bad data and used in by mistake. If this is the case, then one reasonable conclusion is that they were either blinded by partisanship or were simply foolish. Neither of these leads one to confidence in their work.
2. They knew that the data didn't support their claims and they lied about it and hid the details until after the bill was passed.
So, yes accurate data is important, but ignoring, suppressing, or not being able to find accurate data is a problem.
"And why IS it that Obama isn't wanting to address the problems?"
That's a great question, I've asked it of you at least twice.
"You know, when they start actually putting forth some comprehensive plans for even better healthcare options."
You keep saying this as if repetition makes it true.
"do you have any data that shows that the ACA itself is not working for more than it is working? Do you have any data to show that it's actually the fault of the ACA (as compared to the free market allowing for prices to increase, as health care has been doing for decades now)...?"
Not right off the top of my head, although I guess if you had data to disprove my contention you would have provided it. The problem with your second question is that there is no more free market health insurance system any more. It's all driven by government mandates which are promulgated without any apparent regard to what the cost involved is. Once P-BO care started making demands and getting involved the "free market system" ceased to exist. Of course, we didn't have these 65% yearly increases and huge deductible increases before P-BO care...
"Or are you starting with an unsupported premise (as many on the right seem to be doing) that the ACA is causing more problems than it's solving and it is somehow something specific about the ACA that is causing it, as opposed to simple market forces that have been in play for decades?"
I'm stating the obvious that P-BO care has changed, distorted, and overtaken market forces by forcing the market to do things without out accounting for the consequences. I'm confused earlier you say that the health insurance market is "a complicated issue with no easy answers." yet later you claim it's all "simple market forces", which is it?
"My point remains: It is foolish to push to repeal "on day one" the ACA (as Trump et al have done, stupidly) when there is no plan to replace it."
Although a quick google search will demonstrate that your premise "there is no plan" is disputed by the data.
Finally.
You do realize that P-BO care is not about actual "health care", don't you? You do realize that it's about forcing people to purchase health insurance, which is not actual "health care".
I guess that now that I'm done making sense, I'll take a break for a while.
I repeat: It's a stupid idea to delete an existing plan without having a new plan in place, not when lives are in the balance. You appear to agree with this basic bit.
Now, we can discuss the benefits and failings of the ACA at some other time, but that is not the point of this post.
I will help you with your concerns, however...
1. The ACA did not promise "keep your doctor if you want." That was a mistake on Obama's part and he admitted that saying that was a mistake. I have no reason to believe he deliberately told a lie that could easily be discovered. No, that is the sort of idiocy that Trump does routinely, but Obama is no idiot. No doubt, it was then, an honest mistake.
2. "If you like your plan you can keep it...," clarified:
"Over the years the claim has been made, “If you like your plan you can keep it, period.” The truth is a little more complicated than that. Not every American was able to keep their health insurance plan moving into 2014. Assuming your insurer offers your plan and your state allows it, those with private plans that meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act, those with grandfathered plans, and those with public health plans can keep their plans. Those who have non-grandfathered plans that don’t offer the benefits, rights, and protections the new law mandates had to choose a new plan that meets standards by 2014. (This date was pushed back to 2015/2016 in many states.)"
That is, the statement in general was correct, but it was based on the assumption that IF your current plan meets certain basic rights and protections, etc... assuming that people would want those rights and protections. This did not account for the reality that some people would prefer not to have those rights and protections. So, now it has been clarified. Again, no evil intent on anyone's part is evident.
3. re: the average family savings... To the degree that Obama made this claim, he was over-estimating and misstating reality. He should have done better. People make mistakes. You know, like your guy mocking a disabled person and sexually assaulting women.
But let's keep those mistakes in balance.
~Dan
That's a great question, I've asked it of you at least twice.
Well the most obvious answer is that healthcare is a large complicated machine, with no simple answers. As I've stated here at least once or twice. Thus, I assume that the Dems and others working on this (keeping in mind that the ACA is very similar to the GOP-proposed HEART proposal of the 90s) did the best they could, with the intention of figuring out the best solution that could pass within the confines of a Congress where the GOP had promised to thwart Obama every step of the way. I have no reason to suspect that they deliberately introduced any bad parts. Health care is complicated.
As the GOP will find out if and when they actually propose a replacement plan.
But really, that's the point of this post: The GOP needs to have a plan in place before they repeal the ACA. You agree with this basic piece of sanity. And good for you on that.
~Dan
REPUBLICANS WORRIED...
"Republicans are preparing to take a major vote this week aimed at repealing Obamacare -- but the drumbeat of concern within GOP ranks about the lack of a replacement is growing louder..."
"Sen. Bob Corker warned fellow Republicans that it would be "problematic," "not very appealing" and "doesn't seem very intelligent" to repeal the law without a replacement."
"Sen. Rand Paul is emerging as one of the most vocal GOP opponents of voting on a repeal bill before coming up with a replacement package, as he argues that the two votes must happen simultaneously."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/republicans-unhappy-obamacare-strategy/
Stupid GOP shills for the liberals, right?
~Dan
"I repeat: It's a stupid idea to delete an existing plan without having a new plan in place,..."
I repeat, that there have been plans on the table since at least June of 2016, if you choose to ignore that data I can't help you.
1. Given that it was a key selling point of the plan, then I'd say it's germane. Of course, if you want to dismiss it as a mistake, then you have the problem of explaining why they chose (bad) data in formulating the plan despite plenty of data that predicted exactly the outcome that resulted.
2. If by correct you mean that we know that this plan is going to eliminate the plans people currently have and like and force them to choose other plans, then you may have a point. The fact remains that the comment was, at best, misleading and did not accurately represent the actual P-BO care bill. The details of the plan, of course, were intentionally kept hidden until after the bill was passed. Pretty opaque transparency.
3. Which means that he either had and used bad, inaccurate data or that he didn't do his due diligence and examine all the data available. This excuse rings hollow given the number of people who accurately projected what would happen on all three of these points.
The data was there, they either ignored it or suppressed it.
"But let's keep those mistakes in balance."
That's comforting to my optometrist friend (a P-BO/Hillary Kool Aid drinker)who's spent the last couple of months complaining about his monthly premiums jumping up to almost $1,900/per month. I'm sure that'll make everything better.
"People make mistakes."
So for the fourth time, why won't/hasn't P-BO acknowledged these mistakes and made even a token attempt to rectify them?
"And why IS it that Obama isn't wanting to address the problems?"
That's a great question, why hasn't/isn't he?
Why is he more interested in waivers for his political allies, than in fixing his "mistakes"?
"Well the most obvious answer is that healthcare is a large complicated machine, with no simple answers."
You also stated that all the bad things are driven by "simple market forces", which is it?
"Thus, I assume that the Dems and others working on this (keeping in mind that the ACA is very similar to the GOP-proposed HEART proposal of the 90s) did the best they could, with the intention of figuring out the best solution that could pass within the confines of a Congress where the GOP had promised to thwart Obama every step of the way. I have no reason to suspect that they deliberately introduced any bad parts. Health care is complicated."
So based on your partisan assumption, you've decided to just ignore the fact that over the last six years neither P-BO or the democrats have proposed or done anything to fix the mistakes they've made. Your excuse is "It's too complex." so lets just not do anything.
"Stupid GOP shills for the liberals, right?"
OK since your too lazy or scared to actually google this I'll do it for you.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/06/22/republicans-have-a-plan-to-replace-obamacare-and-its-costs-are-unclear/?utm_term=.ce5ea4725711
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/06/22/10-takeaways-from-the-house-gops-obamacare-alternative/?utm_term=.ff7e5cd102ce
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-healthcare-ryan-idUSKCN0Z80AQ
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/231812-republicans-unveil-new-obamacare-alternative-with-tax-credits-for-poor
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-02-05/a-republican-alternative-to-obamacare-that-s-worth-discussing
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/04/obamacare-gop-alternative-supreme-court/24376087/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/us/politics/gop-lawmakers-propose-alternative-to-obamacare.html?_r=0
Note the 2016 date on these demonstrating that a plan has been out there for months.
http://www.npr.org/2016/06/22/483129572/house-speaker-paul-ryan-reveals-gop-health-care-plan
hehill.com/homenews/house/261968-ryan-vows-to-offer-obamacare-replacement-plan-in-2016
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/politics/house-obamacare-paul-ryan-planned-parenthood/index.html
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/06/22/a-detailed-look-at-house-republicans-first-official-plan-to-replace-obamacare-and-reform-entitlements/&refURL=http://search.whiteskyservices.com/?wstoken=CF9C1C45-85CD-4127-BAD8-E7343AAE07BA&dtid=1&pid=21&src=sgsearch&v=1.14.1126.5&searchparam=Paul+Ryam+2016+Healthcare+plan&referrer=http://search.whiteskyservices.com/?wstoken=CF9C1C45-85CD-4127-BAD8-E7343AAE07BA&dtid=1&pid=21&src=sgsearch&v=1.14.1126.5&searchparam=Paul+Ryam+2016+Healthcare+plan
Like I said one simple google search, multiple articles about the GOP alternative plan.
Now, you may not like the plan. You may disagree with the plan. You may think it's all lies spawned in the pit of hell.
And feel free to do so, muster all the data you can to show that the failures of P-BO care are better than the GOP plan. I haven't studied it and frankly have no opinion on the merits of the plan.
But the indisputable, demonstrated by data, fact is undeniably clear. There is a plan that exists, and that simple fact undermines your entire premise.
"But really, that's the point of this post: The GOP needs to have a plan in place before they repeal the ACA. You agree with this basic piece of sanity. And good for you on that."
And the data that adults should rely on suggests that they do.
"Well the most obvious answer is that healthcare is a large complicated machine, with no simple answers."
You also stated that all the bad things are driven by "simple market forces", which is it?
I think it is obvious to most of us that health care being a large, complicated machine with no simple answers is, in part, due to market forces. Some people say something as vital as health care (ie, being able to take care of our lives) is too vital a basic necessity to leave to the Market, which has the bottom line as its main (only?) measure of success. It's complicated. The Market is complicated. It's all one thing, Craig.
Do you disagree?
As to "the plan," I am quite aware that there are several ideas that have been bandied about out there, but the reality is, as Rand Paul and other conservatives are saying, that there IS NO REPLACEMENT PLAN IN PLACE. That is reality.
Do you understand that reality, Craig?
Now, I'm ending this conversation because we agree on the POINT OF THIS POST, which is that it is stupid to repeal something vital without having a replacement plan IN PLACE. So says several rational GOP types, and presumably you agree with me and with them.
I'm no huge fan of the ACA and not necessarily its best defender. Defending the ACA was not the point of this post. The point is that which you and I agree upon.
~Dan
What some other people/sources are saying about the ACA...
"Despite the mixed sentiment, the uninsured rate is at a long-time low and under the ACA, health care spending grew at the slowest rate on record (since 1960). Meanwhile, health care price inflation is at its lowest rate in 50 years...
...In the years since it’s become a law, the Affordable Care Act has already made a big difference in our country by providing new rights and protections to more than 100 million Americans and has helped to reduce the uninsured rate.
[having listed some improvements...] The above is only a portion of what the law does. See other new benefits, rights, and protections, get a summary of each provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, read the full text of the Affordable Care Act for yourself, or browse our site to find out more about the countless other things ObamaCare does."
http://obamacarefacts.com/
"In many cases, those who say they “don’t approve of ObamaCare” show overwhelming support when polled on key provisions contained in the law. Since the law contains hundreds of different provisions, a full support or full repeal stance usually stems from Media influence or association with a political party rather than research or experience..."
http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-myths/
"While the average premiums on the benchmark health plans are increasing, the government says more than 70 percent of people buying insurance on the marketplaces created by the law could get a health plan for less than $75 a month for 2017."
"Republicans say the average family health insurance premium has increased by $4,154 under President Obama. That’s right — and it’s a much slower rate of growth than under President George W. Bush...
Under Bush, the average family premiums (including both what employers and employees pay) went up $4,677 in his last six years in office, from 2002 to 2008, an increase of 58 percent. That $4,154 growth under Obama is a 33 percent increase. If we look at Bush’s first six years, the discrepancy gets even bigger: From 2000, the year before Bush was first inaugurated, to 2006, the average family premium went up $5,042, or an increase of 78 percent."
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/slower-premium-growth-under-obama/
"The Affordable Care Act may be helping to slow down the ever-growing costs of health care, according to a new report. Still, the health care law has yet to entirely live up to its name.
Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums grew more slowly in 31 states and the District of Columbia between 2010 and 2013 -- after the passage of Obamacare -- compared with 2003 to 2010, according to the nonpartisan foundation the Commonwealth Fund."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-premium-growth-slowed-after-obamacare/
"Three years before the ACA took effect, health insurance premiums were increasing by 10 percent to 12 percent each year, and the rate of the uninsured was growing.
Today, even as news about big premium increases for 2017 raises concerns about the Affordable Care Act’s long-term health, an analysis released last week in the journal Health Affairs seeks to put things in perspective. The upshot: Things could be worse.
It turns out that the average premiums in the individual market actually dropped when the ACA was implemented."
https://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/2016/07/29/health-premiums-after-obamacare-theyre-lower/
~Dan
Ok, feel free to peremptorily end the conversation without acknowledging your explicit contradiction of yourself and the evidence that your premise (no alternative plan) is demonstrably false.
Not to mention your inability to explain why for 6 years P-BO's inability to fix his mistakes because "it's too complicated", if it's too complicated for P-BO to even attempt to fix his mistakes then it was probably to complicated for him to play around with in the first place.
Unlike you, I welcome your continued comments at my blog and sincerely hope you deal with any number of the posts in a substantive way.
Hey, that's a great message to send to those with a 65% premium increase and a 10k deductible, "it could be worse". I know how much that inspires me. Life sucks, it's ok "it could be worse".
And that's where I bow out. Because your arguments could be worse.
Should you ever successfully cite my actual arguments, I'll let you know.
In the meantime, know that you're not reading my words and correctly understanding their meaning.
~Dan
One doesn't have a lot of room to insist on grappling with actual arguments -- OR to invite people to "come together as adults" -- when he repeatedly attributes to his opponents the claim, "that's a doodyhead plan."
It's like someone saying that a politician is exceptionally dishonest because of his claim about a certain number of fraudulent votes being cast, then turning around and repeatedly making his own implausible, numerical claim about how approximately 90% of the politician's statements are false -- a claim he doesn't substantiate and doesn't even see the need to substantiate beyond some vague hand-waving about what "some counts" produce. And then, when confronted with the lies of the politicians he supports, he argues that, for HIS candidates at least, frequency doesn't matter so long as the substance of the lie isn't related to supposed war crimes.
With such flagrant hypocrisy, one might (and I think should) immediately conclude that the speaker is both a bad man, because he lies, AND a bad liar, because he's so obvious about it. He's both immoral and incompetent, and so he's in a position to lecture nobody.
Re: "doodyhead plan..." As a point if fact, many conservatives REALLY didn't like the ACA (which was quite similar to GOP solutions a decade before). That is all I'm saying. I'm sorry if that was not clear to you. Now you understand, I hope.
As to Trump's 70-90% false claim rate, that is established as a point of fact. I've cited the sources that establish this fact. Perhaps you missed it, but surely you are aware of these repeated false claims and non-literally "promises" Trump has made? If not, please consider widening your sources.
So, not a single lie on my part. That is, itself, a false claim.
Dan
Indeed, quite a few people oppose the ACA, and some believe the law is sufficiently flawed that it should be repealed even in the absence of an immediate replacement law, but to summarize their opposition by saying that they think the law is "doody" is hardly leading by example if you really want people to come together as adults.
And I must have missed where exactly you cited a specific source for your claim about Trump's frequency of lying, just as I now do not see where you link to that previous, explicit citation.
You can very easily rectify that omission.
You clearly offered a quote in support of your contention that concluded that "it could be worse". Now if your going to offer quotes to support your contention, then you either need to edit them, clarify them, or choose different quotes.
Unless your claiming that somehow the quote you offered doesn't represent your position.
Bubba,
C'mon, don't you understand that it's incredibly mature and adult to refer to your perception of those who disagree with you as "doodyheaded". That's how mature, responsible, adults who wish to bring people together talk.
Without getting into details, as I don't have the time anyway to do so, logic would dictate that if the healthcare situation is worse now due to ACA, the repeal, even without "a plan" would improve things. I don't see how that could ever be controversial.
As to one point made above, that there are now fewer people uncovered than ever before, that's a very hollow point considering it's mandatory. Now if Obama & Co could say, "more people are now insured because my policies led to economic expansion that employed more people at better wages, and brought more people back into the workforce that left it"...THAT would be significant. But holding the gun of federal law to the heads of the people and then doing a happy dance about the people acting so as to prevent the pulling of the trigger is deceitful to the max.
More later...
Craig andBubba, suffice to say that you all fail to understand my words. When you say Dan says... or You're suggesting... you just get it wrong.
Bubba, I can easily give the citation you requested but first, please answer: so you are literally ignorant of the fact checking groups that have documented Trump's many obvious false claims? If so, I can give them to you, but I find it hard to believe that you are that ignorant of basic news.
I doubt you are that ignorant, but you tell me.
Dan
Dan,
I don't believe it actually suffices for you to say that we fail to misunderstand you if you do not even attempt to clarify what you mean, to say nothing of your doing so successfully. I don't think I'm wrong to believe that you're being disrespectful and immature when you attribute to the ACA's opponents the position of "that's a doodyhead plan," and it's not at all obvious how I could be wrong in drawing that conclusion.
I also don't see why I should jump through any hoops at all in order to induce you to live up to your stated standards. When somebody else makes a claim which you dispute, and especially when that person asserts that the claim is a fact, you tend to insist on evidence: if he says the claim is demonstrable, you demand that it be demonstrated; if he says the claim is proven or proveable, you demand the proof.
We even had a quite lengthy argument centered on your apparent position that a claim isn't factual unless it is proveable, so it appears that it is very, very important to you that no one else asserts that any contentious claim is a fact unless he can AND DOES provide the proof for that claim. I think it's reasonable to expect you to live up to the very high standards you seek to impose on others.
(I notice, in your complaint about Trump's claim regarding fraudulent votes, you didn't disprove his claim: you thought it was sufficient to note that he didn't produce the evidence to support his claim.)
So, I don't see why your living up to your own standards -- why your ceasing to be a hypocrite for one measly moment -- is such a favor to me that I owe you some favor in response, much less that it's such a burdensome task that I should fulfill some subsequent request of yours PRIOR to your addressing mine. You're not my superior, and I owe you no tribute.
You said, "I've cited the sources that establish this fact."
You should show us where you have done so.
You now say, "I can easily give the citation you requested."
You should do so -- that is, you should show where you already DID so.
Am I ignorant of the contentious claim that Trump lies 90% of the time? No, I am not, nor am I ignorant of the very compelling argument that such percentages are meaningless, an argument that has evidently never occurred to you.
("As to Trump's 70-90% false claim rate, that is established as a point of fact.")
But the question is not whether the claim exists, but whether you previously cited the sources for that claim.
You said you did.
Again: "I've cited the sources that establish this fact."
You even said that my assertion that you didn't cite your sources is, "itself, a false claim."
Okay, prove it. Show us when and where you previously cited those sources, preferably with a link to your specific comment.
Dan,
When I literally, directly quote something that you have offered to support your position, I fail to see how you can dodge the reality that what you present to support you somehow doesn't represent your views. I understand that it's difficult when you don't read the entire quote you offer and it bites you in the ass, but that's not my problem. It's certainly not a misunderstanding.
Bubba, I guess we misunderstood that "doodyhead" was a term of endearment.
I've made this suggestion on more than one occasion over the years, but I'll make it again nonetheless. Instead of complaining that you are misunderstood, misquoted or in some way purposely distorted (gee...did you actually say that or not?), just clarify that which you believe is an example of such. As each of us, and others, have said over and over again, we can't help that your own words provoke the conclusions they do.
Bubba,
That article to which you've linked makes the same points I made originally with regard to those percentages. It even weighs in on the "lie versus fib" angle that I referenced by commenting on the difference in severity of false statements, such as "landslide victory" versus "your boys were murdered because of a video". I can live with examples such as the former in a president far easier than with those like the latter.
Marshall, I've spent years explaining and clarifying, then re-explaining and re-clarifying. Yet you all keep saying "so you think X..." when I never said X and don't believe X. You all have an understanding problem.
Case in point, Craig said...
When I literally, directly quote something that you have offered to support your position, I fail to see how you can dodge the reality that what you present to support you somehow doesn't represent your views.
What I've made clear:
I'm no huge fan of the ACA and not necessarily its best defender. Defending the ACA was not the point of this post.
To reiterate: MY position is I'm not a fan or defender of the ACA. NOT a fan or defender of the ACA. Repeat it to yourselves as many times as it takes to let it sink in.
What, then, is Craig referring to? I offered some other people's defense/opinions on the ACA that Craig quoted. OTHER PEOPLE, not me. I introduced it thusly:
What some other people/sources are saying about the ACA...
I don't know how much clearer I can be that these are OTHER PEOPLE's thoughts on the ACA, not mine. Because, as I clearly stated, I'm not huge fan of the ACA and NOT a defender of it.
The entire and total point of this post was to say that, like it or not, people ARE depending upon the ACA and according to multiple sources, millions of people are likely to lose health care if you just repeal the ACA. Thus, it seems like a stupid plan to repeal it if you have nothing to replace it with.
What Craig is failing to understand is that he's saying the quote I offered was "to support your position," when I never said that and have made it clear I was not a fan or defender of the ACA, only a defender against repealing it when people depend upon it without some plan of some sort to what to do in its absence.
Now, do you all understand? Do you understand that what you thought about "my" position was not correct?
Given our past history, I have to doubt that you do.
~Dan
So, you introduced the views of other people because you don't agree with them? You didn't intend them to support your position?
I get that you didn't read the whole quote and that it's come back to bite you, why not just admit that and move on.
I note that you've ignored and dodged Bubba's well made point about your continued double standard.
"MY position is I'm not a fan or defender of the ACA. NOT a fan or defender of the ACA. Repeat it to yourselves as many times as it takes to let it sink in."
And yet you've defended the ACA.
Maybe Dan missed where I jumped through his hoop, even though I explicitly restated his question and provided an immediate answer: "Am I ignorant of the contentious claim that Trump lies 90% of the time? No, I am not..."
Maybe he's coming up with another hoop for me to jump through.
Or maybe he's already pointed out where exactly he previously cited his source for that supposedly established fact, and I missed it because I fail to understand his words -- I "just get it wrong." I preemptively denounce myself.
--
Marshall, that entire article is worth a careful read, and one amusing point is that Bill Clinton -- BILL CLINTON! -- ranks as the most truthful politician assessed by PolitiFact.
"Bill Clinton is, in fact, one of the most willfully deceptive and dishonest politicians of all time. Yet PolitiFact is doubtlessly correct that Clinton’s words are rarely factually inaccurate. That’s because Bill Clinton has always chosen his language very carefully, making statements that are accurate in a narrow, technical sense, yet totally misleading in their effect on the listener."
Carefully chosen language that is technically accurate but grossly misleading: that doesn't remind us of anyone we know, does it?
The author also writes, "in sprinkling his column with vacuous numbers, [Nicholas Kristof] adds an unwarranted veneer of social-scientific support to his claim."
Again, that's not reminiscent of anyone, is it? Somebody who might invoke meaningless numbers produced from a suspect methodology applied by a pseudo-objective news organization, heralded as authoritative because it's evidently more honest for leftists to pretend to be neutral than it is for conservatives to admit their partisan leanings?
But surely it's unfair to level the accusation of carelessness at Kristof or anyone nearby who imitates his approach. Surely, such people are just trying to present "rational, well-researched, data-based opinions."
That there data is sometimes meaningless is, at best, a secondary concern.
Much of what I've seen of the 70-90% dishonesty number that gets thrown out is because the claims they've chosen to consider are limited.
These are also the ones who rated P-BO's "If you like your..." statements as being both virtually 100% and the biggest lie of the year.
It all depends on what the definition of lie is, and whether they re-evaluate the statements after time has passed.
Bubba...
"Am I ignorant of the contentious claim that Trump lies 90% of the time? No, I am not..."
So, you asked me a question, the answer to which, you knew. Why do you want me to answer it?
The point is, people have gauged the various candidate's truthfulness in their various statements. AS YOU KNOW (since you admit you are not ignorant, only asking for that which you already are aware of), most candidates in this last election had a True rating of somewhere between ~25-50%. The exception, AS YOU KNOW, was Trump, who made false claims (or sometimes, claims that he did not know were true, as IF they were factual, even though he did not know they were factual... which itself is a false claim... Or sometimes made promises as if they were, you know, promises... but which he apparently had no intention of being true to his word, again, a sort of false claim)... who made these false claims some 70-90% of the time.
Thus, when I said he made false claims most of the time, I was NOT lying, but citing actual data that is available out there. Now, YOU may disagree with the data, but most often, they are verifiable. When Trump claimed about a downed jet (some few minutes after it went down), "That was a terrorist attack, 100% guaranteed!" that was NOT a fact claim, it was a false claim. He did not know that it was a terrorist attack. It was not only a false claim, it was a stupid false claim, to not wait for data to come in before making a claim.
Or, when he claimed just recently that only reporters care about his tax returns, but the rest of Americans don't care about his tax returns (that he promised to release and now is backing away from that promise, ANOTHER false claim/promise), the fact is, people DO care about them. It's a false claim, demonstrably so.
Or... well, here...
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/
You can see false claim after false claim. Demonstrably false. Whether or not you like these organizations that keep count, the claims are out there and verifiable. Line after line.
So, where am I lying? Where is the hypocrisy?
Or, the more rational questions:
DO you understand now that there is data out there supporting my claims and that I did not lie?
Do you understand that reality?
And will you be apologizing for making that false claim?
~Dan
Craig, seriously, Trump speaks in false claim after false claim. Demonstrably so.You're not going to fall back on "depends on what the definition of IS is..." are you?
That you all fail to admit how very serious a false claim problem Trump has is part of what it makes it seem like you all are out of touch with reality.
Trump promised to "lock her up..." He's not going to follow through with that claim. Is that a lie?
He promised to make Mexico pay for a wall (never mind how pointless a wall would be), but he's not going to do that. Is that a lie?
He promised to release his taxes. He's not going to follow through on that. Is that a lie?
How can anyone trust anything he says? He trades in hyperbole and BS. The man is a classic conman and narcissist. How can anyone not recognize that?
You're not a Trump fan, Craig, if you mean what you've said in the past. It seems like it should be obvious to everyone that isn't blind that he's a conman and conservative ideals and promises and true/factual claims mean nothing to him, do you not see that, as one who is not swept up in Trump dementia?
As to this: And yet you've defended the ACA.
I'll repeat for the final time: The point of THIS post was that it was foolish to ask us to trust that IF we just repeal the ACA, that the GOP will come up with "something," even though they have no consensus on what that will be, even though they've tried for 6 years to repeal it but never in all those six years were able to come up with an alternative. If they had six years to come up with an alternative and haven't, why should we trust them to do so now?? THAT was the point of this post, not defending the ACA in itself. Just defending the idea of repealing something you don't like without have a replacement alternative in place.
Do you understand the difference? It appears not.
~Dan
Dan,
In case your addled brain has forgotten, I did not support or vote for Trump. One of my stated reasons for making that choice was the fact that he said whatever popped into his mind regardless of the consequences. Since, I've been quite clear on this repeatedly, I find it strange that you seem to believe that as long as you make claims about my positions that those claims must be true.
Regarding your defense of the ACA, I can't judge your intent, I can only draw conclusions from your actions. So when your claimed intent and your actions diverge, I can only draw conclusions from what I can see. Not what I can't.
Of course your continued denial of the reality that there have been and are alternatives available, as well as your silence on why P-BO chose not to even bother to attempt to fix the serious flaws in the ACA over the past 6 years, significantly undermines your credibility.
Dan.
"So, you asked me a question, the answer to which, you knew. Why do you want me to answer it?"
I did no such thing: I did not ask you the same question you asked me, and I was perfectly clear that our two questions were different.
From the very beginning, I differentiated between the mere assertion of the claim that Trump lies 90% of the time and the actual substantiation of that claim.
"It's like someone saying that a politician is exceptionally dishonest because of his claim about a certain number of fraudulent votes being cast, then turning around and repeatedly making his own implausible, numerical claim about how approximately 90% of the politician's statements are false -- a claim he doesn't substantiate and doesn't even see the need to substantiate beyond some vague hand-waving about what 'some counts' produce." [January 11, 8:50 AM, new emphasis]
You insisted that you did substantiate the claim, specifically by saying you cited the source of that claim.
"I've cited the sources that establish this fact." [10:26 AM]
It was your prior citation of that claim's source -- and not the mere existence of the claim itself -- that I repeatedly asked you to prove.
"And I must have missed where exactly you cited a specific source for your claim about Trump's frequency of lying, just as I now do not see where you link to that previous, explicit citation." [11:53 AM]
You responded by asking a question of your own, and I answered that question while immediately making clear that my own question WAS NOT AND IS NOT about the existence of the claim but, rather, your prior citation of its sources.
"Am I ignorant of the contentious claim that Trump lies 90% of the time? No, I am not...
"But the question is not whether the claim exists, but whether you previously cited the sources for that claim." [January 12, 8:47 AM]
Not for the first time, I quoted your assertion which I have been questioning, to wit, "I've cited the sources that establish this fact."
"Show us when and where you previously cited those sources, preferably with a link to your specific comment." [Ibid.]
You have not done so.
--
Dan, I'm not surprised by this stunt you tried to pull -- literally nothing you say surprises me at this point, and I anticipated your trying to conflate our two questions by making emphatically clear that we were asking different questions, as I quoted above -- but I can't really believe that you think that all this would somehow induce me into begging your pardon (or put me in the wrong for refusing to do so) just for calling you out on a statement you made which is, after all is said and done, evidently false.
Consider the obvious alternative approach: you could have saved face by saying that you misspoke or mis-remembered, and I would have had my doubts, but your unfalsifiable correction couldn't really be disputed.
Sure, you would have had to swallow enough pride to admit that you're human and not some infallible writer with perfect recall, but that sort of admission should be easy for anyone who claims to be a Christian, a redeemed sinner saved by grace.
And you would have had to abandon an attempt to make yourself look like my moral superior, to whom I owe some kind of an apology because (supposedly) you told the truth and I did not, but -- AT LEAST IN THIS CASE -- it should have been obvious that any such attempt was doomed to fail and that its only possible outcome was to make YOU look bad, not me.
If you're not going to be honorable enough to fight only when the truth really is on your side, you should at least be smart enough to pick those battles that you actually have a reasonable chance of winning. That you do neither of these things is a good reason I believe I'm justified doubting your character and your intelligence.
"The point of THIS post was that it was foolish to ask us to trust that IF we just repeal the ACA, that the GOP will come up with "something," even though they have no consensus on what that will be, even though they've tried for 6 years to repeal it but never in all those six years were able to come up with an alternative."
The "point" then, is rather deceitful, as Craig pointed out. There have been alternatives offered over the years. And really, simply repealing ACA IS a plan, even with the problems the flaws of ACA created that will manifest upon repeal. It's really damned if you do, damned if you don't dynamic, that might have been by design. Indeed, I believe it was designed to fail, because no economist who cares about honesty would suggest that such a plan could be sustaining without forcing total compliance (which is why so many now have insurance under the Act), making some pay for others (which is how others now have insurance) and inevitably raising taxes as the burden of covering everything for everybody takes its toll. Once it collapses under its own weight, that's when the left will be able to foist single payer health care upon the non-consenting public.
There is no plan that can be offered that is not simply band-aid fixes for the flaws, which simply perpetuate the fraud of ACA, but in a different way. And because of how ACA was designed, there must be revenues generated to account for the increased Medicaid recipients and the billions siphoned off of Medicare to help make the whole thing work. It's a beautiful crap sandwich for which the Republicans will be blamed, regardless of whether they leave it alone, tweak it, repeal and replace or repeal and do nothing.
So while you pretend you can't trust the right-wing to solve this dilemma Obama forced upon us, you foolishly seem to think leaving it alone is the better option. We're screwed no matter what, but at least repeal alone stands the best chance long term (though I doubt we'll see that):
Of those who will lose coverage, many didn't choose to purchase insurance in the first place. These are mostly young and healthy people, but also others who simply didn't want to spend the money, taking their chances with their health care and how to pay for it should they need medical aid.
Others were insured to begin with and lost the plans Obama said they wouldn't lose because they didn't measure up to ACA mandates. They'll likely find companies willing to sell them a policy more to their liking should ACA's mandates be eliminated.
Like the lie about how many had no insurance before ACA, the numbers used to describe how many would lose coverage is less than honest as well.
As to the rest of you comment, most of it was just more whining about being misunderstood. The bottom line is that after all your corrections and clarifications we still have the same conclusions about your positions, you might want to just man up and own those conclusions, since your corrections don't change what we see at all. Since there are so many of us who agree with what your words mean, it can't be all of us. We've got you pegged pretty well. Face it.
Bubba,
I did indeed read the whole thing prior to your last comment. It's Dan who doesn't read links.
It was your prior citation of that claim's source -- and not the mere existence of the claim itself -- that I repeatedly asked you to prove.
I've cited these reports from the fact-checkers repeatedly. Do you seriously doubt it?
I am not going to go searching for where I did so, but I did. It is reality, I'm sure Craig and Marshall will confirm that I've cited these fact checkers before. Don't want to believe reality? I don't give a damn. It is reality, whether you wish to believe it or not.
Beyond that, if I say that America's founder's believed in the freedom of speech or religion, I feel no need to cite the constitution. It should be obvious to rational adults that it is out there. It is obvious to all but the most obtuse or most ignorant. Same for these fact checking groups. This has been probably the most contentious campaigns ever. Fact checking has been in the news nearly every day for months now. YOU SAY THAT YOU ARE AWARE of these fact checking groups. WHY would I cite to you (again) what is so readily available and that you know about?
"Show us when and where you previously cited those sources, preferably with a link to your specific comment." [Ibid.]
You have not done so.
And I will not do so. I am not your lapdog. It is an obvious claim and if Craig and Marshall are at least willing to be honest (and I'm sure they would be), even they will confirm I've often cited these groups. Do you truly think that I haven't?
So the point remains, I have told no lies. YOU can not cite and support one single lie. Your claim that I have lied is, itself, a false claim. WILL you admit that reality? That you can point to no lies I have told? WILL you repent of this false claim and recant it?
That's on you. The question, for all of you, comes down to this: Do you all recognize reality or not. It's hard to believe that you don't, but you repeatedly act as if you fail to understand basic real world realities.
~Dan
Case in point... Craig:
In case your addled brain has forgotten, I did not support or vote for Trump.
Dan, a FEW SENTENCES EARLIER:
You're not a Trump fan, Craig, if you mean what you've said in the past. It seems like it should be obvious to everyone that isn't blind that he's a conman and conservative ideals and promises and true/factual claims mean nothing to him, do you not see that, as one who is not swept up in Trump dementia?
CLEARLY, I just said that you are not a Trump supporter (fan) that you are not "swept up in Trump dementia..." CLEARLY, then, you fail to be able to read some direct words that recognize that you do not/have not supported Trump and recognize that I recognize you did not vote for Trump.
Do you see why it seems you all have basic difficulties in understanding written words? And, if not written words, in understanding and accepting reality?
I just don't know what to do with this level of confusion/obtuseness/ability to understand reality.
Again, case in point, Craig:
Regarding your defense of the ACA
Dan:
Do you understand the difference? It appears not.
~Dan
Dan, first you assure me that Craig or Marshall can vouch for your writing, and then you IMMEDIATELY tell Craig why you think he has "basic difficulties in understanding written words," and that's not the first time you've criticized him and Marshall, accusing them both of being unable to understand the most basic aspects of what you write.
If you think Marshall and Craig do not understand what you write, they cannot possibly be trusted as reliable witness about that very subject. Even if one of them were to do the unlikely thing and confirm your claim, you surely would not and cannot expect me to believe them.
If you really mean your criticisms of Craig and Marshall, you probably shouldn't expect them to vouch for you, and you certainly cannot expect anyone else to accept their vouching for you.
--
Now, you bring up the beliefs of America's founding fathers, to suggest that, like their well documented beliefs, the supposed fact that Trump lies 90% of the time -- or AT LEAST the existence of the claim that "some say" he does -- is obvious and needs no citation.
You're free to say that you have never needed to cite those sources, but that IS different than saying that you DID cite those sources, and it doesn't prove that you did.
"WHY would I cite to you (again) what is so readily available and that you know about?"
Once again, you're conflating questions: I'm not asking you to cite the source NOW, I'm asking you to show me where you did so previously.
"I've cited the sources that establish this fact."
Where, exactly? If you did, it should be easy for you to do so.
--
You now say you're not going to substantiate this claim about your own writing. Okay, but you should have said so from the beginning, instead of insisting that I answer a question of your own, implying that you actually would reciprocate afterwards.
"Bubba, I can easily give the citation you requested but first, please answer: so you are literally ignorant of the fact checking groups that have documented Trump's many obvious false claims?"
I answered your question, and now you refuse to answer mine.
I jumped through your hoop, and now you balk at keeping up your end of your bargain.
Tell me again why I should repent from my dreadful conclusions that you're not an honest and honorable man.
--
You won't prove your own claim, and why not? Because your claim must be true, because you say so.
"It is reality... Don't want to believe reality? I don't give a damn. It is reality, whether you wish to believe it or not."
Granting that the gravity of the claims are vastly different, in principle this really isn't all that different than a certain President-elect making claims that he doesn't substantiate.
"He says he 'knows things' but what? He isn't saying what he 'knows...'"
And you're not saying where exactly you actually did cite your sources, as you said you did. You're imposing on your political opponents a standard for truthfulness and evidence you simply are not willing to apply to yourself.
You shouldn't be expected to take Trump's word on anything -- fine, fair enough -- but you insist that I take your word even on things that ought to be trivial for you to produce. To do so isn't merely to distrust Dan Trabue, it's to deny the very fabric of reality itself.
That is a blatant double standard, vindicating my original charge here that you're guilty of flagrant hypocrisy -- and that hypocrisy is the explicit reason I'm here calling you out as a liar. Even if you really did cite your sources somewhere and THAT particular claim corresponds with reality, your unwillingness to prove that claim shows that you don't really believe that claims of fact require demonstrations of proof.
Dan, here's a brief summary of where I think I'm justified in concluding you're dishonest, at least regarding this particular conversation.
1. In calling Trump dishonest, you're not only bringing up his claims which are provably false, you're bringing up his contentious claims that are not proven.
- It's not like you can show for a fact that fraudulent votes in the 2012 election are far fewer than the margin of error: the problem is only that he hasn't produced the evidence for his claim. You say it's a lie, not because of the presence of disproof, but MERELY because of the absence of proof.
(Strictly speaking, you went further than that, saying that Trump knows he has no evidence for the claim. How YOU know that he knows this interests me greatly, as you've always been quick to denounce presumption as a kind of mind-reading, but this is one instance of hypocrisy I haven't focused on.)
- And it's not like you can show for a fact that Trump has no good reason to distrust guys like Clapper and Brennan. You just think it's enough to say that he hasn't elaborated on his reasons: "He says he 'knows things' but what? He isn't saying what he 'knows...'"
(Another thread of hypocrisy I chose not to make too much of: "Saying, 'I really, really, REALLY don't want to believe our intelligence community' is not the same as having rational, well-researched, data-based opinions." Indeed, but wasn't there broad consensus in the international intelligence community that Saddam had a WMD program, and yet has that prevented you from accusing George W. Bush from deliberately lying in order to invade Iraq?)
2. From this, along with our long discussion about your position that a claim cannot be knowable with certainty unless it also proveable, I take it that your stated position is roughly that (as I put it) claims of fact require demonstrations of proof, at least when the claims are contentious.
3. If you REALLY believed this, you wouldn't make your own contentious claims without actually backing them up.
- In the discussion about how Trump is a liar, you wouldn't have mentioned the implausible claim that some 90% of Trump's statements are false without substantiating the claim, at least by citing the actual report produced by others so that your critics could evaluate the claim on your own.
(Really, Dan, it's simply not enough to say that the claim is out there, somewhere -- or if it were, you would no doubt accept at face value the claims that Obama is really a Kenyan-born Muslim, that Hillary murdered Vince Foster, and that Chelsea is Webb Hubbell's love child.)
- And here, you wouldn't have written, "I've cited the sources that establish this fact," without pointing out precisely where you did so.
4. Instead, you insist that I take your word for things EVEN when you should be able to easily prove them -- and if I don't, you say I don't recognize reality and I don't want to believe in reality.
The logic should be simple enough that even you can follow it.
As has so frequently been the case, you insist on high standards of evidence ONLY when it suits you -- generally for your opponents and never for yourself.
You do not consistently adhere to principles of high evidentiary standards as objective and disinterested goods for their own sake: you invoke those principles quite inconsistently to score cheap points in debate.
If you admitted that you care more about winning an argument than maintaining your integrity, you would still be a dishonorable man, but you would finally be an honest one.
Instead, because you pretend to be honorable, you can't really be honest, and I have no qualms about criticizing you for your dishonesty.
"WILL you admit that reality? That you can point to no lies I have told?"
Do you mean in THIS post and thread, or in general? Upon reading this, what immediately popped into my mind was your conscious choice of insisting that Trump grabs women by the crotch. I corrected you more than once, because you continue to say it. After the first time, every repetition is a lie.
And frankly, citing questionable leftist "fact-checking" sites can count as lies as well, since they are not reliable at all, and as Bubba's link (which you likely haven't bothered to read) clearly explains, and specifically about the "Trump lies 90% of the time" claim. You might as well be feodor citing unsubstantiated reports.
Bubba,
You need to understand that once Dan makes a claim, he doesn't need sources, the claim and the repetition thereof are enough.
Dan
When I have access to a computer I'll go back and pull your quotes that led me to make the statement I did. Having said that "if" you've ever provided proof of your claim that doesn't absolve you from supporting the claims you make in the here and now.
"You need to understand that once Dan makes a claim, he doesn't need sources, the claim and the repetition thereof are enough."
Well, look at that, Dan! Craigslist vouches for you after all!
"Craig," not Craigslist. Stupid auto cucumber.
I hot the Otto cucumber. My only problem with Craigslist is that I didn't invent it.
Post a Comment