It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obamacare Architect: We Passed the Law Thanks to the 'Stupidity of the American Voter'

page: 7
71
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: searcus1

Welcome to ATS Searcus1!

I'm not going to pile on regarding "your number" as Links234 already addressed it with you and provided you with evidence to consider.

I would wonder though, since you signed up to give me advice on my posting techniques, just where did you get your "1.5 to 2 million previously uninsured people" information from? You don't give a citation or reference or link or anything; that's usual for making claims here that are not generally accepted common knowledge.

And, it's a little harsh, right out of the gate, to accuse someone of dishonesty and then do nothing to prove it.

Thanks for your unsolicited advice, and again, welcome to ATS!


Here is where I got the information from. The title of the article is this:

RAND Comes Clean: Obamacare's Exchanges Enrolled Only 1.4 Million Previously Uninsured Individuals

The link is this:

www.forbes.com...

The websight is Forbes so not sure how much credit you give them, but that's where I pulled my information from since you asked. To be completely up front the article was dated 4/9/2014 so yes, there could have been some more signups since that date.
edit on 12-11-2014 by searcus1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: searcus1

Thanks for the link Searcus1.

So long as Forbes is reporting the facts, I have not a problem with it.

Here's a note from the article you linked:



RAND’s figures don’t take into account the last few weeks of the Obamacare open enrollment period, and they contain a substantial margin of error, due to the study’s small sample size. (RAND surveyed 2,425 individuals aged 18 to 64; the 1.4 million figure has a margin of error of 700,000, meaning that there is a 95 percent probability that the actual number is between 700,000 and 2.1 million previously uninsured enrollees.)


I don't think I've ever seen a statistic published with a margin of error of 700,000. Wow.

But beyond that, looking at several other news stories since April, it seems that the actual number of uninsured now covered under Obamacare (which includes everything brought to bear under the law, the marketplace exchanges, medicaid, etc.) is probably closer to 6.5 to 7 million people. (Business Insider article

My 26 million number came from a CBO estimate of how many will buy health insurance on the exchanges by 2022. That's what you get when you trust a 49 year old brain, LOL.

The CBO does project that by that date, however, 89% of Americans will be covered.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

This is the same CBO that was "duped" into not scoring Obamacare as a tax by the architects of the bill. You know, one the same guys we are discussing now. He openly talks about how they carefully concealed it from the CBO so they didn't use the "t" word in their scoring.

How can you be confident of anything in their numbers regarding this bill since they can only work with the numbers provided to them, and the numbers provided to them came from the same people who are admitting they pretty much gave the CBO carefully controlled information to create fool people?



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Because the numbers I presented from CBO are recorded enrollments (matters of fact/matters of record), and the projections made based on those recorded enrollments. You know, FACTS.

Dr. Gruber was certainly free to give his opinion of how ACA was presented to CBO and much hay has been made of it.

His opinion doesn't change the facts of registration and it doesn't change the ability to mathematically project based on that.

~~~~~~~~

I did encounter some interesting facts about the history of the Individual Mandate I wanted to share (ACA - Wikipedia):



The concept goes back to at least 1989, when the conservative Heritage Foundation proposed an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer health care. It was championed for a time by conservative economists and Republican senators as a market-based approach to healthcare reform on the basis of individual responsibility and avoidance of free rider problems. Specifically, because the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) requires any hospital participating in Medicare (which nearly all do) to provide emergency care to anyone who needs it, the government often indirectly bore the cost of those without the ability to pay.

When President Bill Clinton proposed a healthcare reform bill in 1993 that included a mandate for employers to provide health insurance to all employees through a regulated marketplace of health maintenance organizations, Republican Senators proposed an alternative that would have required individuals, but not employers, to buy insurance.


What Republicans were in favor of the individual mandate as recommended by the conservative think-tank Heritage Foundation and tried to insert it into previous legislation directed at insurance reform? Wow.



The 1993 Republican alternative, introduced by Senator John Chafee as the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act, contained a "universal coverage" requirement with a penalty for noncompliance—an individual mandate—as well as subsidies to be used in state-based 'purchasing groups'. Advocates for the 1993 bill included prominent Republicans who today oppose a mandate, such as Senators Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett, and Kit Bond. Of the 43 Republicans Senators from 1993, 20 supported the HEART Act. Another Republican proposal, introduced in 1994 by Senator Don Nickles (R-OK), the Consumer Choice Health Security Act, contained an individual mandate with a penalty provision; however, Nickles subsequently removed the mandate from the bill, stating he had decided "that government should not compel people to buy health insurance".


Good for Senator Nickles eh? Here's the interesting point brought up thereby however:



At the time of these proposals, Republicans did not raise constitutional issues with the mandate; Mark Pauly, who helped develop a proposal that included an individual mandate for George H.W. Bush, remarked, "I don’t remember that being raised at all. The way it was viewed by the Congressional Budget Office in 1994 was, effectively, as a tax."


So, with all respect, actually with no respect to Dr. Gruber's opinion, it seems that the CBO has known that an individual mandate represented a tax since 1994!

I guess the CBO and the American people, are smarter than Dr. Gruber believes.

edit on 19Wed, 12 Nov 2014 19:10:43 -060014p0720141166 by Gryphon66 because: Formatting



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Daedalus

Daedalus, I respect you and you know it. Glad to hear you're finding ways to deal with the suckage that is life sometimes.

Not sure why you've chosen this spot to jump into this particular conversation, but, fair enough. All insurance works on the premise of risk-loss. Actuarial science is a fine art which guides insurance companies to what used to be a fairly fine margin of profit, which through graft and corruption has been expanded over the years, but the margin of profit in insurance is always the difference between what people pay in for premiums and what the company has to pay out coverage (less company overhead of course). That's not "charity" that's just the way the concept works.


i know how insurance is supposed to work...and it was working just fine, with some exceptions, of course...

see, i didn't liken insurance to charity...you guys did, i was just commenting on that.



I'm not going to reargue the justice or injustice of the ACA because I know you to be a reasonable person in general that simply has a very different base opinion than I do on the matter. The ACA is not the best solution to the problem


no, it's not the best solution....i mean, if they got rid of the individual mandate, and bundled services people don't need, removed the special marketplaces, and made sure there was some sort of consumer protection in place, it might be kinda good...



but it was a solution


so's suicide, or knocking yourself out to cure a headache....just because one CAN do something, doesn't necessarily mean that one SHOULD do that thing.....doing something just so you can say "look, i did something", is an idiotic reason to do anything, especially when it's passing a law that will cause hardship to people..



and it is in place


unfortunately, and only on account of bribes, and nobody reading the goddamn thing...



and it is helping people.


in my opinion, it's not helping enough people to justify it, in it's current form...and i'm willing to bet it's hurting more people than it's helping...



I can make arguments in favor of the mandate but I too believe it's BS, though not for the same reasons generally listed by my friends on the right.


do you consider me one of your friends on the right? because i don't subscribe to either "side"....i'm glad you believe the individual mandate is BS, but i'm curious....what possible justification can you come up with for it, other than pure greed?



Sixty years ago, or so, any criticism of the government would have been "unamerican." Now, apparently, any complements toward the government are considered the same way. Times change.


it was only considered "unamerican" by the people in power, and it still is....they'd rather we be good little zombies, and let them do what they think is best, regardless of what consequences we end up paying for their actions...

i'm not sure where you get the idea that complementing the government is considered unamerican.....compliment where it's due....but blindly defending their every action, no matter how harmful to the people? that IS unamerican...



And I'm not going to argue semantics with you. I understand how, similar to the way that some people think that the dollars they pay in taxes somehow remain marked as they move through the system as "theirs" rather than revenue, the same concept would claim that the money paid in "premiums" also remains personally marked somehow.


i don't really think it's a matter of semantics at all....we pay taxes to the government...we were told that those taxes are being charged to fund the smooth operation of government, and the many services they either do, or are supposed to provide....so at this point, it's a lot like a service agreement...you pay them money, and in return, you expect certain services to be provided, and needs to be met....

when you pay the money, you expect the services, but when they're not provided(in other words, the government not holding up it's end of the deal), now you have a problem. it's a lot like having a magazine subscription....if you paid your dues, but didn't get your magazines, i'm pretty sure you'd be pissed...

i think the disconnect you're having is that you're not seeing the arrangement as it is supposed to be, but rather what it's been perverted into...

the federal government are civil servants..that's to say, they work for the american people. we fund them with our taxes, and they're supposed to be beholden to us.....they're supposed to do our bidding, with the ultimate power of what goes, laying with the american people. these days, the government has become a power unto itself, and doesn't seem to be accountable, or beholden to the american people anymore. people accept this, and consider the government to be a rightfully authoritarian entity, with full agency over not only itself, but it's affairs, rather than the collective of public representatives, answerable to the will of the people that it's supposed to be.

under the way things are SUPPOSED to work, we're supposed to have a say in how the money is spent. it's not literally "our" money, at least, in terms of physical ownership, but since the government is supposed to be an adminstrative tool of the people, technically, all monies, held by, and managed by the government, are the rightful property of the american people.



To me, that's insanity, but it's two different positions.


i'm failing to understand how it could be considered "insanity" to either want to get what you pay for, or to not hafta pay for things you don't need..

i mean, logigally, the conversation goes something like this: "my premiums are supposed to pay for services for me, not other people" "that's the nature of croudfunding anything" "wouldn't be so bad if i didn't hafta pay for all this stuff i don't need" "wouldn't need to if purchasing it wasn't mandatory, but as long as they're legally allowed to gouge me, i guess why not give it the beans?".....the individual mandate really is at the heart of this whole thing... as long as they can legally fleece us, they're going to...



I've said several times though, I'm excited to see what the Republicans do with their power, up to and including a repeal of the ACA.


well, it'll be interesting, to say the least....could be good, could be bad, could be neither...i'm sure we'll both find stuff to take issue with, lol



Other than that, I hope your life continues to improve, and see you around.


thanks.
edit on 11-12-2014 by Daedalus because: Word: Write letters and s**t, yo.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

so, then, zero republicans voted in favor of the ACA?



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

I did not liken insurance to charity, the person I was discussing the matter did.

I didn't and haven't liked ACA. It has had some positive effects. My solution has always been to give all Americans the option to buy into the cadillac Federal Employee's Plan at scaling rates. No one listens to me though.

I understand the reasons for your ad absurdum responses to "something is better than nothing" ... I just don't agree its a similar situation.

Yes, I know that Pelosi's stupid statement will always go along with criticisms of ACA, as it probably should. That doesn't mean no one read the bill. And let's not start shooting Congress over making political deals and bribes or we'll have to have the whole election over again.

"Friends on the right" is just a turn of phrase. No, I don't refer to you when I use it. You actually think and consider your opinions before espousing them.

Daedalus I was born in the late 60s, raised in the 70s and 80s, and I can assure you even then that "respect for the Government" was still a big part of society, schools and even churches. We said that Pledge EVERY morning. The "hippies" were against the government and were considered traitors. And the word wasn't tossed around as lightly then as it is today.

I understand what you're saying about taxes. We should have a long chat about that sometime.

To think of the money that one pays in taxes actually "holding together" as it moves through the system so that it might be "my money" that goes to pay a welfare queen's monthly check or to pay for part of a Hellfire missile or whatever is insane in my opinion. It stops being "my money" when I pay my taxes, at that point it is Government Revenue. It's kinda like telling a cop that he can't give you a speeding ticket because, by god, you pay his salary. Of course, that latter is not insane, but these days, stupid. LOL

I'm starting to feel bad for the Republicans and the ACA. I think they're damned if they do and damned if they don't

Later, Daed.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

if the CBO has known since '94 that this "individual mandate" is a genuine tax, then this begs the question of why, regardless of how deceptively it may have been worded in the ACA, was THIS individual mandate not classified(scored) as a tax?



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

That's a really good question! Although, it does give a little more background (and maybe a bit more understanding) to the SCOTUS decision and Chief Justice Roberts supposed "defection" doesn't it?

Were you aware that the Individual Mandate was a part of Republican insurance fixes so far back in history, and that so many of the guys who are so bitterly opposed to the Mandate in the ACA were united in support of it when it was "a Republican idea"?

I admit I was not until reading that article I posted parts from. I just thought it was Mitt's plan known as Romneycare (which is still going strong in MA, by the way.)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   
EDIT: f**king quote tags....


originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Daedalus

I did not liken insurance to charity, the person I was discussing the matter did.


as i said, that particular transmutation seems to have been part of the dance.... -shrug-



I didn't and haven't liked ACA. It has had some positive effects. My solution has always been to give all Americans the option to buy into the cadillac Federal Employee's Plan at scaling rates. No one listens to me though.


that might be a decent solution as well...i mean, a truly "universal" system COULD work....but it would be dependent on everything NOT being based on greed and profit...i'm fairly certain(unfortunately) that this can't and won't happen, so we'll probably never see a system like this, and if we do, it will most likely result in an even WORSE financial burden on our posterity...



I understand the reasons for your ad absurdum responses to "something is better than nothing" ... I just don't agree its a similar situation.


how so though? i mean, offering up, and enacting into law something that screws so many, with the justification that it's better than nothing, is just as idiotic as eating plastic, or tree bark, because it's better than nothing...



Yes, I know that Pelosi's stupid statement will always go along with criticisms of ACA, as it probably should. That doesn't mean no one read the bill. And let's not start shooting Congress over making political deals and bribes or we'll have to have the whole election over again.


by no one, i, of course, am referring to the vast majority of those who's job it would be to vote on it...i'm sure SOME of them at least TRIED to read through it, but the thing is excruciatingly long...who has time to pour through all that? and if this guy is to be believed, it was written this way INTENTIONALLY, to dissuade people from reading it in it's entirety. but let's be honest here for a moment; if they can't be bothered to read the entirety of other, shorter bills, why would anyone think they took the time to read this one?



"Friends on the right" is just a turn of phrase. No, I don't refer to you when I use it. You actually think and consider your opinions before espousing them.


well thank you...i'm glad someone sees that...



Daedalus I was born in the late 60s, raised in the 70s and 80s, and I can assure you even then that "respect for the Government" was still a big part of society, schools and even churches. We said that Pledge EVERY morning. The "hippies" were against the government and were considered traitors. And the word wasn't tossed around as lightly then as it is today.


i agree that there should be respect for government...it's hell of a thing to enter into such a compact with the people of your nation, and be elected to hold such a sacred trust...too bad the people who get into these positions aren't doing it for the right reasons anymore...now it's all about money and power, and i'm sorry, but i can't respect people who's sole motivation to enter government is money and power...

unfortunately, those "traitors" were the only ones seeing things as they truly were...



I understand what you're saying about taxes. We should have a long chat about that sometime.


i would like that very much....it would be a hell of a conversation, lol. perhaps you should start a thread..



To think of the money that one pays in taxes actually "holding together" as it moves through the system so that it might be "my money" that goes to pay a welfare queen's monthly check or to pay for part of a Hellfire missile or whatever is insane in my opinion. It stops being "my money" when I pay my taxes, at that point it is Government Revenue. It's kinda like telling a cop that he can't give you a speeding ticket because, by god, you pay his salary. Of course, that latter is not insane, but these days, stupid. LOL


well, i think that's the distinction....i don't know that people actually think of the money THAT way....and those who do, are kinda delusional..

as i said, ALL government money is the people's money, as the government is supposed to be nothing more than an administrative tool of the people...in that sense, yeah, it is all our money, and we do pay their salaries, and they should take what we say more seriously, because there are a hell of a lot more of us, than there are of them..



I'm starting to feel bad for the Republicans and the ACA. I think they're damned if they do and damned if they don't


yeah, pretty much.....if they let it stay, they'll catch hell from the people being hurt by it....if they do away with it, they'll catch flack from all the people currently getting "free stuff"....same goes with modifications...unless they're conceived and executed JUST SO, there's gonna be problems..
edit on 11-12-2014 by Daedalus because: damn you, tags...



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus


originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Gryphon66

I wonder how much the Constitution says that I have to give in charity.... According to your wishes?



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

i dunno about understanding or background....i still think roberts was either bribed, blackmailed, or in some other way strong-armed into changing his official decision....there's no concrete proof, but it fits with the rather sudden "here one second, gone the next" nature in which his reversal of view took place...

i mean, the only way you get someone to say one plus one equals anything other than two, is with some form of coercion, or incentive-based offer...

if it was a tax in '94, then it's still a tax now.... -shrug-

in any event, i actually didn't know about the whole "republicans wanted it" thing, until i read the article..but it doesn't surprise me..

political parties really are a terrible thing...moronic "clubs" for stupid people to belong to, so they can feel like they're part of something....vicarious life and accomplishment...kinda sad, when you think that less than 100 years ago, people could go out and accomplish stuff on their own, and didn't necessarily NEED to seek validation, and a sense of self worth through OTHER PEOPLE'S ACTIONS....



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

Okay, what in the world could "they" have on the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States that would coerce him into changing his vote?

That's an even scarier thought to me.

It's called a tax because that is the only way government can enforce a payment on a citizen that hasn't done anything wrong (penalties, fees ,etc.) It's just by definition. And it was a dumb way to do it. And was again, in my opinion, an attempt to get Republican support.

George Washington, in his Farewell Address, was quite literally prophetic:



[The spirit of political party] serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Okay, what in the world could "they" have on the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States that would coerce him into changing his vote? 

A bit off topic, but the conspiracy theory goes something like this...
Many of our high ranking government officials are blackmailed into taking the positions that they hold.
For instance, Chief Justice Roberts. Maybe he was nominated to the court after they had 'the goods' on him. Maybe he is a child molester, whatever. He can't decline the nomination or they spill the beans.
I know there is no evidence of some secret cabal that uses intelligence info in a nefarious plot, but J.Edgar Hoover had a lot of info and did use it.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

"Recruitment" usually starts early in the careers of many high ranking officials.

And, the FISA "warrants" sometimes work wonders beyond belief.




posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Just read a letter that J. Edgar sent to Dr. King yesterday, now that you mention it.

What a ... horrid little cross-dresser he was.

But you do see what I mean? IF Roberts was blackmailed ... WHAT have they got on him. He should be one of the top ten most powerful individuals in our government AND the least malleable as the leader of the Judicial Branch.

See what I mean?

But, I actually understand it better with the research I did this afternoon. They've all known that an individual mandate is a tax. They've ALL known it. Roberts knew it.

Iiii dunno. When you go this far into the dark fields of the human soul ... the compass doesn't work anymore.

Best,



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

yeah, tagging screwed up the post...i fixed it...check it out..



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
We would certainly be shocked if we knew what really is behind everything in Washington DC, probably not the worst that conspiracy theorists can dream up....
Or is it?




posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Daedalus

Okay, what in the world could "they" have on the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States that would coerce him into changing his vote?

That's an even scarier thought to me.


it is frightening....though maybe for different reasons..

could be frightening, because of the thought that "they" can find out anything about anyone....or it could be frightening, because the item of information would hafta be REALLY bad, to get a man to sell out the entirety of the american people....

i mean, it could be something as silly as pictures of him in women's clothing, to something as serious as he killed someone...we don't know, and probably never will..



It's called a tax because that is the only way government can enforce a payment on a citizen that hasn't done anything wrong (penalties, fees ,etc.) It's just by definition. And it was a dumb way to do it. And was again, in my opinion, an attempt to get Republican support.


i'm not sure that a tax is the only valid instrument government can use to enforce a payment on a citizen that hasn't done anything wrong...i mean a voluntary payment for a service would work too, i imagine..but then you've got the government playing the role of a business, which not only is awful, but would never end well..

but anyway, yeah, so they couldn't call it a tax, so in order to get it classified as a penalty, fine, or fee, they decided to criminalize personal choice, lol. i give them points for creativity, but goddamn, is that ever awful...



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Daedalus

...snipped...

Daedalus I was born in the late 60s, raised in the 70s and 80s, and I can assure you even then that "respect for the Government" was still a big part of society, schools and even churches. We said that Pledge EVERY morning. The "hippies" were against the government and were considered traitors. And the word wasn't tossed around as lightly then as it is today.

....snippped...

I was born in the '50s and raised in the '60s & '70s and became a "hippie"---not because I was "against the government" but because I was against their policy of sending our young men into the jungles of Vietnam for no reason other than to feed the Military-Industrial complex. We might have been considered traitors for opposing LBJ and his massive war because we were vocal in our protests but if you look back at the history of that Peace Movement---it made a difference. The war was ended and the draft was abolished. We also got a lot of bills passed to clean up the pollution left behind by the Military Industrial Complex and thanks to those laws rivers and bays in the US no longer erupt in flames. Now you can call us traitors if you like, but if you actually look at what was accomplished by those of us who refused to bow to little tin gods, you'll see that marching in the streets did make a difference.
We are now involved in many, many wars---some we probably have no knowledge of if the truth is told---and we have no draft so who cares if we're into the longest wars in the history of the country? Not the Dimopublicans---they've allowed the Military Industrial Complex of Ike's day to become the Petrochemical-Pharmaceutical-Military-Industrial-Transnational-Corporate-Fascist-Elite-Bastards of today that suck the very life out of every American tax payer. Like my old hippie friend, Gatewood Galbraith used to say, "We need to take the government out of our bedrooms, our bladders, our brains, our billfolds and our internet chat rooms and put them back into a little box where they belong."
I don't know of one single voter who voted for the ACA or whatever they are calling it today but I can give you a long list of senators who did so. Perhaps it is not the voters who have the stupid disease but the ones elected who voted for a bill they hadn't read because they wanted a "win" for their Messiah or perhaps they were paid off to vote by promises of untold millions in campaign donations and free trips to exotic places.
If, and when, we can decide that BOTH parties are out for our money and our lives---we can once more put government back in a small box where it belongs----but as long as the majority bow to the little tin gods of party, we will continue to decline as a society.




top topics



 
71
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join