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

a reply to: theNLBS

I R Merican! Me like the show! It r so gooooooood.

I'm with everyone else, best episode yet. Pretty sure I was crying by the time that needle went around the 6th time.

If Nancy claims she can't remember this a-hole, she needs to be hospitalized for dementia.

Also so funny to see Obama praise Gruber then utterly deny his credibility. Back peddle to the max.

ME R LOVE SHOW!

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

These are the points I gathered from your post (I am sincerely trying to synthesize your points, so if I am in error as to your intended meaning, please let me know):

1. Government is bad and = Nanny State

2. ACA (forcing people to buy insurance) is Redistribution of Wealth and Redistribution of Wealth (from the wealthier to the poorer) is bad and not part of the Constitution (despite the welfare clause).

3. Government involvement in healthcare = also bad, due to bureaucracy and labyrinthine government systems


My responses:
1. Government is bad and = Nanny State.

Can Government overreach? Yes. Can some regulations seem ridiculous? Yes. Can the weird mix of personalities competing for resources for their interests produce laws/regulations/systems that are less effective than they could be, or sometimes unnecessary? Yes.

THAT BEING SAID, CORPORATE excesses, CORPORATE abuses, and bad people in general have, over the history of our nation, FORCED people to rise up and protect themselves. This rising up turned into labor laws, regulations, etc. The reason for the Nanny State is the Abuses of Power and Lack of Responsibility by corporations and individuals.

Ergo, the private health care insurance companies are the ULTIMATE REASON for the ACA.

A trip down memory lane...

Here’s a question for pundits and politicians outraged over people whose individual insurance plans are being canceled because they don’t meet the new health law’s standards. Have you forgotten what a nightmare this branch of health insurance was before?

To jog your memories, I dug out an article on the subject I did back in 2008. Its title: "On Their Own: Far From a Remedy, Insurance for Individuals is a World of Pain".

It featured the stories of:

The Georgia real estate agent whose group health plan was folding and who couldn’t find replacement insurance unless it excluded coverage of her $1,700-a-month rheumatoid arthritis medication, without which she would quickly become disabled.

The Arizona small business owner who could only find insurance if it excluded coverage of anti-rejection drugs he was taking for a successful liver transplant he’d had years before.

The Virginia early retiree who discovered he was uninsurable at any price because of his diabetes, despite the fact that he kept it under perfect control.

The Indiana lawyer whose longtime insurance company, following standard industry practice, deliberately shrunk his plan’s risk pool to drive his premium up to more than $4,200—a month!—and him out of the plan.

The article also featured the resuts of a survey we did, which found that 76 percent of uninsured respondents said they couldn't afford an individual plan. And the ones who were "lucky" enough to have this type of coverage didn't like it very much because it was more expensive and had more limited coverage than health plans available through an employer.

Consumer Reports

Again, I also have personal experience with this nightmare, and these few stories are just tiny tips of the iceberg here. Can we at least agree that what happened before wasn't some land of private insurance bliss???

Before worrying about "the extent of the damage" it would be great if folks on your side could at least look at the extent of the damage (which IS known) that occurred under the way things were PRIOR to the hated ACA.


2. Redistribution of Wealth.

Why is it people on the right only see this as one directional? Top (the wealthy) having money "taken" from him by the "lesser classes." How about the unremitting redistribution of the wealth of the middle classes UP towards the Wealthiest? Who fights for the common man and woman??? Who fights for our families???

I guess I can't help but look at the issue of "redistribution" and see it from a totally opposite point of view here. The hard earned money of the middle classes keeps getting sucked UP to the top and it doesn't trickle back down.

What is wrong with fighting for the average person and trying to protect the consumer base of the economy???




The Constitution is where we look for when we need laws - it is open to interpretation, and that's where people start fighting (just like in religion). But if not for the Rule of Law in our government, what recourse would happen when Corporations abuse their power and the citizenry?

As it stands, with Citizens United, we see more and more of the wealthiest controlling what happens in our government, which, in my opinion, is because they know if they control the government, the control the laws and prevent the government from acting in the best interests of the non-uber-rich. Just a thought.

The ACA is not welfare. The ACA is a system of shared risk - a giant insurance pool which benefits private corps and hopefully helps mitigate their abuses. It is, I totally grant you, an imperfect system, but I vehemently state that it is better than what we had before.


3. Government involvement in healthcare = also bad, due to bureaucracy and labyrinthine government systems

One point I will agree on here is that the PROCESS to access health care in government sponsored systems such as Medicaid (and SSI for disabilities, etc.) is an exercise in frustration, at times. The systems (state vs. local) don't talk to each other or share data and with HIPPA laws, getting access to the information needed to get set up in that system and maintain ones status within that system can induce head-banging-against-wall syndrome.

Why is it like that? Well, inefficient computer systems, lack of good data management, compartmentalization and poor training, etc. etc. etc. as well as the need to combat fraud and "system gamers." It's a pain in the butt. I would LOVE to have these systems upgraded and made more efficient but THAT COSTS MONEY and requires REALLY GOOD CONTRACTORS which COST MONEY. So, they need to use their already allocated money more efficiently AND money needs to be allocated to doing this basic INFRASTRUCTURE WORK for the crumbling governmental information highways.

When it comes to the SERVICES PROVIDED after jumping through all those hoops? Well, I have to say they have been amazing when the funding has been made available for them.

The folks in our state gov right now don't like to fund these services to the poor and disabled however, because "redistribution of wealth." See point 2 above.

Look Third Eye, I have no personal issue with you whatsoever, in fact, I know good men who say the same things as you do. It just blows me away (as I'm sure it does you) that we can live in the same systems and in the same world and see things so absolutely differently.

peace,
AB

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

You really need to watch the video.

really?...as a left of center guy, he lost me in the first 15 seconds, and I clicked it off. with the massive amount of left-hating posts on ATS over the years that I've been on here, it started out with that old and familiar ring to it. as I'm more than accustomed to now, I will research it on my own to find out the details, innuendos, parts left out, opinions taken as truth, etc...

originally posted by: theNLBS
this is another episode where we expect some serious heat from the political jug-heads out there,

I won't give you heat. I'll give you applause. Seriously excellent episode. I agree that the American voter is stupid. Look at the crap people that we keep voting in ... and the voting blocks by skin color and by religion ... and the numbers who still think their democrats or republicans are somehow better than the 'other side'. STUPID. I've actually heard people say that 'their side' (D or R) is telling lies and being corrupt only because the other side supposedly did it first. Those poor folks actually still believe in 'their side'. SAD.

There's something I don't understand about this...

This video violates ATS's guidelines verbally and with imagery. I'm not even allowed to post pages of my comics if they reference drugs or violence, or if they contain swear words. Funny how that works...

Don't get me wrong. I like things on the raunchy side because its raw and real. I've always wished that ATS was allowed to host more raw content. But only some people get to post the stuff... just saying...

Anyway -- nobody hated him for "telling the truth." He went into detail about how they exploited the stupidity of the American voter in order to pass something that they could not comprehend. He didn't just say "American voters are stupid." He was explaining how their stupidity was manipulated in favor of Obamacare... and he did it on camera. Are you seriously implying that we shouldn't be angry about that?

I will agree that the American voters are a bit slow in the head. That video of random citizens on the streets was painful to watch. But Its those of us longing to return to those "decades long passed" that are angry about this. We know that our potential vastly surpasses our current position, and people like those idiots on the street are deadweight. They're anchoring us into the stone age with their stupidity.

Sometimes I worry that I'm not well-informed enough to have a say... then I see people who don't even know what the Civil War is. Like.... HOLY crap.

originally posted by: XxNightAngelusxX
This video violates ATS's guidelines verbally and with imagery.

This has been explained a nauseating number of times.

Ever since we encouraged member podcasts (back in 2006) and member videos (with the media center in 20009) it has been made clear that contextually appropriate vulgarities and images are allowed in such content. It has been made clear, over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.

The primary reason -- playing a video or listening to a podcast is a user choice. Imbedding inappropriate images or typing vulgarities preempts the user's choice to see such things.

originally posted by: XxNightAngelusxX
We know that our potential vastly surpasses our current position...

Does it?

Having potential would presume that, all it takes is some effort to return to past glory. I disagree. The United States no longer has potential for big smart things.

Consider: the talented engineers who designed and oversaw the construction of the Saturn V rocket did so primarily with slide rules. Where is there such a large collection of comparable talent today? The closest you're going to come are the engineers at Google -- I've met several, they're no rocket scientists.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

The primary reason -- playing a video or listening to a podcast is a user choice. Imbedding inappropriate images or typing vulgarities preempts the user's choice to see such things.

I understand. But I can't even post links to a video containing this kind of content without my thread being thrown in the trash bin. Its not a huge deal or anything... nothing can be perfect. Just throwing it out there.

Consider: the talented engineers who designed and oversaw the construction of the Saturn V rocket did so primarily with slide rules. Where is there such a large collection of comparable talent today? The closest you're going to come are the engineers at Google -- I've met several, they're no rocket scientists.

From your perspective, it sounds like we need a transformation. A nation full of people isn't hopeless, even if they're intentionally being lead off a cliff. Most well-established countries had a "rise and fall" era at some point or another. And from them, they slowly rebuild into a more stable, well-maintained country. Generally speaking, of course.

We're the youngest first-world country in the world. We haven't hit our fall yet. But from it, we'll adapt in whatever way we need to. The idiots you're referring to will be weeded out, natural selection. God willing.

Our country carrying a ridiculous amount of deadweight is no reason for the rest of us to give up. Things will change when they HAVE to.

a reply to: XxNightAngelusxX

Let me put it as simply as possible:

A country that, within its very halls of power (such as the Congress, Senate and Supreme Court) does not respect the findings of the world's scientists and would prefer to ignore them because it is more profitable or convenient, is on a path to irrelevance.

And those who overwhelmingly vote to sustain such a system... well...

originally posted by: masqua
a reply to: XxNightAngelusxX

Let me put it as simply as possible:

A country that, within its very halls of power (such as the Congress, Senate and Supreme Court) does not respect the findings of the world's scientists and would prefer to ignore them because it is more profitable or convenient, is on a path to irrelevance.

And those who overwhelmingly vote to sustain such a system... well...

Don't you think that would lead to some kind of transformation sooner or later? Everyone in the country isn't okay with the way things work now. My only point was that -- if what you say is true -- then something will HAVE to change sooner or later.

a reply to: AboveBoard

ok Above, let's take a deep breath shall we?
ACA involves subsidizing health insurance for people who were formerly not covered because otherwise they could not afford it. Subsidizing means that you implement what they may pay into the system. So while it may not be "Free" for them, they do get "free" subsidies. Subsidizing also means that taxes are involved because that is how the government raises funds to do what it wants to do. Ergo, ACA is redistribution of wealth because in order to pay for the subsisdes AND the administrative costs of the program government has to get it from the taxpayer's pocket. Ergo it is Redistribution of wealth from those who are able to those who are not(remember Marx?).
Also the other way that it is redistribution is due to the actual penalty for NOT buying insurance. So not only is the government trying to force you to buy insurance quite possibly against your will, but they will penalize you and sick a three letter agency on you to collect if you don't. Gruber himself said that the cost to the insurance companies would be passed on to the consumers, ergo, not only a tax and a penalty, but the consumer would end up paying, so yes ACA penalizes the consumer and not necessarily the corporate interests. And we know that corporate interests plus Nanny State = fascism don't we. Fascsism is a form of socialism.
Jonathan said that the public was lied to in order to get the law passed. That is basically the ends justifying the means, and we know that comes out of the Marxist camp don't we.

This is what Forbes says about Gruber's statements and the legislation

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.

www.forbes.com... es-from-the-public/

I don't have any more time this morning but if you have any more questions, ask away.
p.s. I encounter a lot of people on these threads who don't seem to have a problem with Marxist redistribution of wealth. I understand that many may be sincere in thinking that in helping unfortunate souls, they are helping all society. But in the end it really does not help society. I have already stated what some of the unintended consequences of the law are. I hope you took that into consideration, because it isn't just a matter of oh well what's a few bucks more if it helps all those needy people, but that is the problem with the Nanny State consciousness. It is never just a few bucks and Gruber was talking about how the true costs would be hidden from the public by the way the bill was written. That is really tantamount to deliberate deception to impose another Nanny State program.
Remember, there are somewhere around 70 members of Congress who are concurrently members of DSA(Democratic Socialists of America), so if you thought they weren't trying deliberately to import as much socialism as they can, I think you would be mistaken and quite possibly naïve.
If you are one of those people who think it's a good thing, I probably will not be able to convince you otherwise. The media has done a great job of talking this legislation up as a great boon to society, and demonizing anyone who is not for it.
I personally think the consequences will be devastating, as even now costs have already risen and millions have already lost the insurance they had and liked. Remember, "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?"

Thanks for the news. I don't do social media. I'd assumed people would be upset that there was subterfuge. It didn't occur to me that people would take the comment personally. Thanks for keeping me in touch with the world.

a reply to: TrueBrit
Thank you for your post.

Utopia is a long way off, as it threatens the rich and powerful. They have the power to prevent utopia through propaganda and pitting us against each other. We appear to have been dumbed down for a reason.

a reply to: ThichHeaded
Yup, there is no one to vote for. Last time around, it was either Romneycare or Obamacare. I think people voted for the presidential candidate who appeared less insane. However, either choice was a loss for us and a win for the oligarchy. We can't get real parties like the Green Party and the Democratic Socialists to battle it out. They just get shut out. We get carefully packaged status quo that appeals to whatever bias a person has at the time.

a reply to: gentledissident

HAHAHAH!!!!

Sorry... wait a minute!

Utopia? Who the hell said anything about Utopia? Look, fixing the medical system in the US would not make the United States of America a Utopia, either over night, or over a very long period. To do that would require that similar de-corporatising efforts were made in every government department, it would require that all citizens were informed enough and engaged enough to vote on the issues, rather than for representatives, it would involve a root and branch reconstruction of government, and a change in priorities for most people living there. It would mean an end to the military industrial complex, an end on reliance on fossil products for power and heat, it would mean an end to obsession over markets and stocks, shares and investments...

A proper, and positive change to the healthcare system would mean that everyone would have access to a good standard of medical care, and getting the insurers completely out of the picture by running that system through taxation would be the only legitimate way to do what needs done. Of course, there is no political will for that, because it will be deeply unpopular with the people who buy senators, and of course those who mistakenly believe that good health is for the rich (who are often those who believe that only the rich work hard as well, showing how doubly deluded that camp really are).

However, a healthy citizenry without a total uprooting of the way government operates, the way money works, and the other things I mentioned, is basically ensuring that the slaves are healthy and little else! I am familiar with that, living in the UK!

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: gentledissident

HAHAHAH!!!!

Sorry... wait a minute!

Utopia? Who the hell said anything about Utopia?

I'm pretty sure I did.

We dream of equality, fairness, and leisure. We long for utopia.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

ok Above, let's take a deep breath shall we?

I don't really need to, but thanks. You go right ahead.

Let's start with the "Pants on Fire" part of your post:

Remember, there are somewhere around 70 members of Congress who are concurrently members of DSA(Democratic Socialists of America), so if you thought they weren't trying deliberately to import as much socialism as they can, I think you would be mistaken and quite possibly naïve.

Politifact addressed this claim:
The claim is made by Sovereign Citizens United that 77 members of the "Congressional Progressive Caucus are "socialists who are openly serving in the U.S. Congress." They claimed also, that the Democratic Socialists of America group was not only related to the CPC, but was created by it.

From the DSA representative Politifact contacted, Frank Llewellyn:

Llewellyn said there are no members of Congress who are members of the DSA and he rolls his eyes at claims that President Barack Obama is a socialist.

"We have a banner that says ‘Obama is not a socialist, but we are,’ " Llewellyn said.

Our ruling (Politifact)

Sovereign Citizens United believes it has evidence that shows the Congressional Progressive Caucus thinks like socialists and is under the thumb of the Democratic Socialists of America. The evidence is rather flimsy and, in some cases, bogus. The DSA doesn’t boast on its website that it created the caucus, as the sovereign group claims.

Like PolitiFact Oregon, we give this claim our lowest rating, Pants on Fire.

So I will chalk this up to being your personal belief and I don't need to address it, or claims of the President being a socialist, any further, as I find them to be simply wrong. It also lets me know that productive discussion in these areas may be moot: we are not working AT ALL from the same sets of data and have vast chasms between what we consider to be "truth" and "fact."

It is from this foundation of your belief in "Socialist Agendas and Plots" that your concept of "Marxist Redistribution" is being applied. However, I consider this foundation to be made, at best, of sand, and at worst, of thin air.

The difference is this:

The S-word is overwhelmingly considered a toxic label in American politics. Yet, it is used more frequently these days, most often as a way to demonize liberal politicians.

Socialism is the idea of the government controlling the entire means of production of goods and services for its citizens. That contrasts with liberalism in American politics -- the idea that the government should offer a wide array of programs to help citizens.

www.politifact.com...

Let's talk subsidies. People who don't like individuals getting subsidies for healthcare might want to consider the opposite end of subsides: Corporate Subsidies/Welfare

Corporate subsidies equal pulling money from the Middle Class, or a Redistribution of Wealth from the Middle to the Top, often to fund very lucrative companies and their interests: Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Agribusiness, and The Banks (because they need more of our money). The average American Family pays out $6000 per year in taxes to Corporate Welfare.
billmoyers.com...

Your point of "millions have lost insurance that they liked" is misleading. The insurance plans that were "lost" (i.e. legally had to be removed from the insurance plan offerings by insurance companies) were "Junk Plans" that do not meet the Basic Standards of Care. In other words, people had crappy plans that the insurance companies used to suck profits from with very little in payouts due to people not understanding the limits of their policies.

One thing to be VERY clear about here - the discussion of Gruber and "the stupidity of the American voter" is the same kind of discussion that insurance executives have regarding how to best craft insurance plans to make the most money from the least services, while dressing it up as "good coverage" through (sometimes misleading) marketing. It is all "product to be sold" that makes insurance companies money, and believe me, they used peoples ignorance regarding fine print to sell them piles of crap. The ACA is set up to combat this practice.

Another thing you brought into the mix with "socialism" is "fascism."
Definition according to Merriam-Webster:

: a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government

You are somehow conflating the concept of "regulations" and "public assistance" with "dictatorship" and "total control," along with "total suppression of dissent."

I get that people don't like to be told that they have to purchase health insurance or they will be taxed, and they don't like the idea of people getting help to purchase expensive insurance plans. I get that they equate this with a "Nanny State" full of onerous regulations that impinge on what they consider to be their freedoms, as well as "giving to those not worthy of it."

One only has to look at the amount of dissent that is NOT being crushed with military force to understand that we do not have a fascist, one-political-party system with a dictator-for-life always "winning" elections, and that the government has not taken "total control" over what people can do and say.

The ACA, while requiring public participation for a particular end (health care for citizens) in an imperfect manner that preserves corporate profits, does NOT equal the establishment of a fascist dictatorship.

We are required to pay into Social Security without our consent, which is intended (also imperfectly) to be a forced savings plan. We are required to pay into Medicare, which solved for the problem that no one seems to remember - elderly people not being able to afford grossly expensive private insurance and not being covered for this through any other means. The ACA is no different, really.

But the battle rages on: those who think in terms of individuals as interdependent with society and its conditions, and those who think of the individual as separate and "free" from a larger systemic whole will continue to fight over what is best. I think both the individual and the "greater good" of society as whole are important and need to be balanced.

peace,
AB

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Ergo, ACA is redistribution of wealth because in order to pay for the subsisdes AND the administrative costs of the program government has to get it from the taxpayer's pocket. Ergo it is Redistribution of wealth from those who are able to those who are not(remember Marx?).

How do you feel about the national road infrastructure? Highways, bridges, etc. And the connecting state and local roads, expressways, bridges, etc.?

It can be very easily argued that the national highway/road infrastructure is the most massive taxpayer-funded redistributions of wealth in US history… and is currently ongoing. Ergo, by your logic, it's a socialist Marxist system.


How is ensuring the health of citizens less important than ensuring citizens can readily travel to their jobs.

a reply to: gentledissident

I dream of equality and fairness, but I would argue with dreaming of leisure.

I think most of the people that I speak to regularly, who are citizens of the United States of America, are perfectly happy to put in a days solid effort, as long as they are not being monkeyed with by faceless entities, unelected, nameless "benefactors" of the parties and lobbies, and a banking system gone insane. The fact that they ARE being monkeyed with, the fact that their destinies are NOT their own in any meaningful way, and cannot be unless the situation changes with regard to the aforementioned issues, THAT is what ruins their day!

A fair turn of the screw for all would be healthier than a Utopian system anyway, because human beings need to strive in order to flourish, in order to progress themselves, build their minds, and their bodies to a decent condition, and by extension improve their lives, and live them more fully. A Utopian ideal destroys all notion of struggle, of need. There is nothing wrong, however, with needing something. The problem comes when no matter what one does, no matter how hard one works, or how hard one seeks, one is none the less unable to positively effect ones life.

I think with specific regard to the issue at hand, that of medical care, in Utopia there would be no doctors, because no one would be working, at anything, ever. That would rather render the issue rather moot would it not? Its not realistic. But promoting circumstances which place power in the hands of people rather than corporations, place emphasis on the provision of medical care, rather than serving a customer, these things ARE realistic, these things ARE possible and unlike a Utopian attitude to the entire thing, would actually be entirely beneficial to the circumstance which affect the people.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I know that when some people think of utopia, they think they’d be too happy and content to work. They think they need competition and suffering in order to be motivated. This is like thinking people need the threat of a sky father to behave. We have utopia in us.

Utopia would be an epic fail if no one worked. So, one couldn’t call that situation a utopia. We have a natural need to take care of business like other species. However, we’ve evolved past the insect stage (even ants have leisure time). We’re not only mammals, we’re primates. We’re not just any primates. We have a frontal lobe. This is our blessing and our curse. We communicate and build like no other animal. We also project into the future. Uncertainty of our future well being can put us into fight mode even if no threat is imminent. We get to contemplate death and thus fear it. There is no solution to death, other than fairytale beliefs of an afterlife, so we’re pretty much in fight mode all the time. On top of that, we’re crazy with beliefs that have no beginnings of proof.

Utopia is about understanding our position on this planet as Homo sapiens. It’s understanding our limitations and not wishing them away. It’s about understanding our abilities and maximizing them. It’s about meaningful work being a pleasure. We apes have come a long way despite competition. Cooperation would make life as close to effortless as possible. We have incredible technology and communication abilities. We can streamline survival to a work of art. We just need to stop fighting each other and our own minds in order to realize our potential.

We have become so selfish and superstitious, we are afraid to unite. We are mad apes and thus frail. Any challenge to our unique and erroneous world views threatens us. The thought of infidelity sends us into rage. We feel that it’s safer for us to stay apart lest our feelings get hurt and violence ensues.

That is why we are far from utopia. The smarter apes, who could lead us away from our insanity, guide us toward it. Our tortured condition benefits them. There are a few primates, like myself, who genuinely wish the best for everyone. Ironically, sometimes those whom we wish to help call us crazy. However, progress will be made if we exiled leaders just keep communicating and demonstrating.