Next Level BS #22: Jonathan Gruber Takes The Heat for Obama Care over "Stupid Voters" Comments

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I think it might be one end of an Einstein-Rosen bridge. It certainly has the correct density, although I do not wish to know what realm the other end goes to. On the map of the universe, it says "here there be monsters!" at that location!

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: theNLBS

Something seems dishonest by the way the show is sold and the substance of the show. One thing ill point to directly, interviewing those ill informed voters , you made a mockery of their ability to know,or care who won the civil war. Yet they all could tell you the latest trendy news. Then you use this same trendy platform to sell the show, hashtag this and that. Tweet us, buy our gear,be mindless zombies. If your show was to actually wake anybody up youd never sell.

EXACTLY!!!!! It isnt like the show takes money to create or anything.

I mean records requests and peoples time are free right.

Really guy?

a reply to: oblvion

Not really what i was being critical of. The platform of sell; is the same ignorant platform being critized. No contradiction, really guy?

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: oblvion

Not really what i was being critical of. The platform of sell; is the same ignorant platform being critized. No contradiction, really guy?

In the real world( not your sisters basement) time and research cost money.

Just like puberty, in the real world these are facts.

a reply to: oblvion

Dude, you got some real problems. I made a point instead you attack me and my sisters basement. I rather like my sisters basement. Im well acquainted with the real world. Once again it is prudent to not attack the platform for which you stand,

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: oblvion



Dude, you got some real problems. I made a point instead you attack me and my sisters basement. I rather like my sisters basement. Im well acquainted with the real world. Once again it is prudent to not attack the platform for which you stand,

I could not stop myself from starring this!!!!


Well stated!!!

I didn't have time to watch yet, as I am almost on my way out the door for work, but just from the title, yah he should take the heat, because anyone associated with putting this fraudulent garbage on the American people should be held responsible.
If the emperor is untouchable, then take down his minions.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

You really need to watch the video.

a reply to: AboveBoard

that can't get approached with "fixing" or "improving" in

You must have missed the Fox interview of Carl Rove where he suggests only certain parts be "sunsetted" to use a nicer term. But then I think Rove is stupid for that suggestion, I am in the "throw the whole darn piece of garbage in the trash" camp myself. There is almost nothing worth saving in it, it is Draconian as it gets. But on the other side of your statement, politics makes people think it's not what it really is....just because they are D and the legislation came out of the D camp.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

ok will do when I get back

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

In what fantasy world can you keep the benefits without paying for them? Aren't conservatives the ones who came up with the economics on this one originally??

We all pay in so that we can all be insured. There is no free lunch here, and no free health care.

You can't keep the part about eliminating pre-existing conditions or other goodies without there also being a giant pool of "shared risk" (i.e. NOT sick people) to go with it. That's how it functions. Karl Rove may like the sound of keeping the things people like, because "politics," but unless he wants it to be unfunded (like a couple of wars I can recall), it ain't gonna happen that way.

Until those who want to repeal the law can show me a viable alternative, I don't believe them in regards to "keeping what people like about the law." It's just wind and the sounds bouncing through the echo chamber.

Personally, I'm fierce when it comes to my kids and whether or not I can get health care for them, especially considering their issues. When you say "scrap the law" you might as well be saying "scrap your kids - I don't care." Just an FYI so that people on your side of the issue have an understanding of the intensity of feeling on the other side.

peace,
AB

I'm not suppose to be rude to my new American Family that welcomed me with Xenophobic open arms...
But at times I do feel I'm visiting with the bucktoothed cousins in the mountains.

People here don't read much. And if they do, they read about Kdashs cottage cheese cellulite arse n thighs.

The Kimmel segment whilst super funny, is a sad sad sad indictment on education.
Truth is the US WAS the greatest country on earth. It showed us freedoms but with the exception of gender equality, and sexual orientation rights it has gone backwards since the end of world war 2.
Lawrence of Arabia in the first world war said of England;

The people are fat.

For me, It strangely describes the American Psyche in so many ways other than body mass.

Excellent Joe, more naked bums next episode please. It will help your viewing numbers.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
ok will do when I get back

Because the video goes where you might not expect.

a reply to: AboveBoard
Are you referring to Romneycare? He set that up as governor for a very blue state, what can I say? I was never an advocate for that and I only voted for him as a counter to a much more radical candidate.... you know the one.... but if I'm not mistaken HillaryCare was the real precursor to Obamacare. The only difference is that they didn't get their socialist single payer. Remember Hillary was pressing for Universal Pre K and even that liberal tv series "Veep" was pushing the concept in one of their episodes. Do you really think that this is not all part of the socialist plan being implemented by Progressives? Net Neutrality is also being pushed by Democrats now, and I agree with Ted Cruz. It is just going under the guise of not "throttling" people's Netflix downloads. Like the Prez really cares your Netflix gets downloaded fast. But that's another though connected story.

No amount of forcing people to purchase health insurance as a way to subsidize other people's insurance is an acceptable thing, and it sure isn't keeping costs down, so I really don't give a rat's whiskers whether we call it a D or an R plan, it's bad bad bad.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
ok will do when I get back

Because the video goes where you might not expect.

Looks like in the first 5 minutes Joe went into blaming Romney for Gruber's nutcase statements. So now it's not the Democrats fault he made those statements, now it's Romeny and the Republiclans fault. All I can say on this is I wasn't happy about RomneyCare and this is incidentally the reason why many Tea Partiers stayed home at election time because they knew Romney is moderately Progressive RINO.... so there's THAT!
I wasn't for RomneyCare any more than I'm for Obamacare, both are right out of the Democratic Socialists of America Progressive camp. Don't care if it has an R or D it's terrible and the proof is already in the pudding.
So there's that!
Do I need to watch more than the 5 minutes that told me where Joe's at?
Ok, out the door for my next shift.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Do I need to watch more than the 5 minutes that told me where Joe's at?

Poor ThirdEye, didn't watch long enough for the hook.

Give it time.


and…

Looks like in the first 5 minutes Joe went into blaming Romney for Gruber's nutcase statements

No, that was only giving context as to why J. Gruber was picked to be part of the Affordable Care Act planning.

And for better or worse, whether you like Gruber's comments or not, he appears be brutally honest, and perhaps an accidental whistle blower.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

1. So, there isn't a plan other than "repeal" from your end. Got it. No viable plan, just whimsical ideas of a magic world where we can say "we will keep what people like about the ACA" without a plan or way to justify that economically.

2. You think Obamacare is some sort of socialist plot. Got it. Though it is totally designed to uphold the insurance industry rather than cutting into the industry through single payer. Single payer, incidentally, wouldn't take away someone's right to private insurance, it would just mean that private insurance would be for the wealthy...which it kind of was before the ACA if one's employer didn't provide it...


3. You think Obamacare has its origins in Hiliary's efforts in the '90s rather than the Heritage Foundation. Well, the foundations of the ACA can be found in the 1993 HEART legislation put forth by Republicans to counter Hillary's efforts. While its true many Republican's didn't like it back then, history is history. The Heritage Foundation connection is sound. Source

4. Mitt Romney is somehow not a "real" Republican, instead he is a RINO moderate. This would only be true if you were much farther to the right than Mitt Romney. So, got it.

5. You think Obamacare is bad bad bad. I can't argue with your feelings about it, but I have yet to see how what we had before was good good good. And, again, I have yet to see any positive, viable, economically sound ideas coming from the Republican/Tea Party side to replace it.

6. You think somehow net neutrality and Obamacare/ACA have some sinister tie-together because "Ted Cruz." Thus it is somehow tied into the overall "socialist" agenda? Wow. Ok. Got it. Um. Just...wow. I don't know how to even approach this with you because it is so densely biased there isn't a rational way for me to address it with you, other than to say I think you are confused.

Bottom line, if you like ATS and don't want to see it shut down due to extortionist practices by big Communications Corps, then you might consider being FOR Net Neutrality.

Well. Then.

You know, it was really bad bad bad before the ACA. Did you miss the part about my kids? On other posts I talk about the 10 years I was denied insurance because I had cancer? Do you know how many people get cancer? Anyway...

Until your side comes up with more than nice-sounding ideas about keeping what people like but tossing the rest, I can't pin my life or my kids lives on agreeing with you. Ain't gonna happen.

The ACA strives to solve problems that stemmed from skyrocketing healthcare costs and the tyranny of private insurance company "death panels." So if there is no plan in place after "repeal" and "gee wouldn't it be nice to keep what everyone likes" sans any real life effort to justify the economics of that whimsy, then we are back to "if you get sick, you are screwed."

- AB

a reply to: AboveBoard

Whimsical? The only real plan is to not have the Nanny State be involved. But we have a Marxist socialist in the WH and 70 give or take members of DSA in Congress and they want socialism any way they can bring it. Why does government have to be involved in healthcare? It is NOT the role of a representative Republic, and not in the Constitution, regardless of the argument people keep making about the welfare clause. It is simply not the government's job to be in the business of being a healthcare provider.
Are you aware of the bureaucratic regulations of Medicare and Medicaid? Are you aware of how fussy govt is just in filling out timesheet forms for healthcare workers who even work for private companies? Why do we want government messing around any more than necessary?
Again, it is not our govt's job to provide insurance for people but this is part of the Progressive agenda.
Whatever gave you the idea that government has to do anything about health insurance? The best thing is to just stay out of it. But if you are one of those people who believe that govt should be involved in every aspect and making sure that everyone's lives are taken care of, I guess you just automatically think it's their job.

Let me tell you something, forcing people to purchase health insurance is just a redistribution plan to make some people pay for others, because forcing people to purchase insurance is part of the juggling act. That's just the beginning of it. If you don't buy, you pay a fine. SCOTUS called it a TAX. So now we can be taxed on something we didn't purchase. Of course the whole govt is run this way. We are taxed for whatever the govt bureaucrats think is important, whatever is the govt program du jour. And of course who decides all of that? Do you?

It basically amounts to confiscation of your property(your paycheck) and our Founding Fathers set things up as a limited government, not as a Draconian Mafioso extortionist.

5. You think Obamacare is bad bad bad. I can't argue with your feelings about it, but I have yet to see how what we had before was good good good.

We don't know the full extent of the damage yet. Let me ask you something, how do you like the SS system? I read just a couple days ago that the govt is raiding SS to pay for something else. Is that how you envision a responsible government running things?
Did you know that some California hospitals have gone bankrupt because ambulances were coming over the border to hospitals carrying people who cannot nor intended to pay for services? Do you think that the AFA fixes that problem? If so, would you mind giving me a rundown of that? Here is just one unintended consequence of the bureaucratic regulation of AFA

The law has effects that extend well beyond the employment rate and the average length of the workweek. People, businesses and entire sectors will jockey to reduce their new tax burdens or enhance their subsidies. Their adjustments to the new incentives will make our economy less productive and stifle wage growth, even among workers who have no direct contact with the law's penalties and subsidies.
The "29er" phenomenon is a good example of how the law harms productivity. Because ACA's "employer mandate" requires firms with 50 or more full-time workers to offer health plans to employees who work more than 30 hours a week, many employers and employees have adopted 29-hour work schedules.

online.wsj.com...

This is what is wrong with socialism. In supposedly helping some people (using redistribution, subsidies, force) other people are inevitably hurt.
But I suppose if one is like the First Lady....one believes that someone must give up their pie so others can have more. (almost a direct )
In any case, the subject matter is that people devising the Nanny State public-private partnership alternative to the free market private one felt justified in tricking the "stupid" public by foisting a lie and obscuring the truth. What exactly was the truth that Mr. Gruber omitted: That the insurances companies pass on the costs to their consumers. What was the tax? The individual mandate.

It’s that the law’s complex system of insurance regulation is a way of concealing from voters what Obamacare really is: a huge redistribution of wealth from the young and healthy to the old and unhealthy. In the video, Gruber points out that if Democrats had been honest about these facts, and that the law’s individual mandate is in effect a major tax hike, Obamacare would never have passed Congress.

Gruber said. “In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in—you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed, okay. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.

www.forbes.com... es-from-the-public/
This is a dishonest practice at best, and the ends justifying the means.

a reply to: theNLBS

It seems to me that it should be the stupid voters that take the heat. After all it is these same stupid voters that got him elected in the first place.
Come on now they might as well face up to their stupidity!

originally posted by: Diisenchanted
a reply to: theNLBS

It seems to me that it should be the stupid voters that take the heat. After all it is these same stupid voters that got him elected in the first place.
Come on now they might as well face up to their stupidity!

Unfortunately, we all suffer the consequences, even those of us who did not vote for him or his ACA.