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

The best thing the American people can do is not to give these jerks in Washington any ability to pass anything. Nothing they do is in our best interest. They screw us over every chance they get. It don't matter which party it is. We are totally screwed if we get a full Republican government.

Obamacare was bad enough I can only picture the republicans using it as a political tool against the democrats and we'll suffer even more. They'll make changes to it and screw it up more and say see what the democrats did. I honestly don't think they'll repeal Obamacare if they get full control.

a reply to: diggindirt

You've completely mistaken my meaning. I was speaking of the way the "hippies" were seen at the time by a fairly large and conservative portion of the population. I myself either wasn't born or was too young to have an opinion but that opinion has never been that the 60s and 70s radicals were traitors.

I was drawing a distinction between then and now. Criticism of the government was considered unamerican by many then, and the opposite is true today.

Best,

a reply to: butcherguy

when is the last time ANY of us here voted on legislation? We Don't! We sometimes vote for and against propositions in local or state issues, but tell me when you voted for some National legislation? We can only vote for the choices offered to us in the form of legislators such as Senators and Congresspersons. You know, the ones bought and paid for by the now legal, anonymous unlimited donor corporations or those that come already wealthy. We don't vote for legislation so the premise of the topic is false. The lobbyists get their hands in the deal, the fake think tanks suggest and often write for consideration, legislation, and the committees and panels debate and trade favors and barter and we end up with new laws and programs. Why someone would say the voters are stupid I'm not sure. We need a "None Of The Above" on our ballots to let THEM know we prefer better choices, but until that time, its only what is offered to us.

a reply to: butcherguy

But when the guy that devised the law comes right out and calls the voters stupid, well haven't we had enough yet?

That.

Right there.

Is there any more Americans need to know about just how much contempt your 'leaders' and their cronies hold you all in?

Not that it's really a surprise anymore...not to those paying attention at least i suppose.

The bigger question in my view is...what are you all going to do about it?

Are you going to reclaim your country and it's honour? Or carry on going around, and around and around on that two party conjob of a political party system that just swaps out one load of contemptuous liars and self promoters, for another load of the same?

The power is and always has been in YOUR hands, not theirs.

But as they readily admit, the majority of you all trust what the idiot box persuades you to think, but they control the idiot boxes.

I thought it was common knowledge that American voters are stupid. A quick glance at the last 40 years of politics and who has been elected, both Congressional and presidential, is proof enough of that. If American voters had half a brain, we'd have already ditched this false two party paradigm years ago, and they would stop focusing on stupid crap and actually really think before they vote or pick sides.

Besides, I call BS on this article's claims, since the American public had zero to do with Obamacare. It was a mixture of the president, congress, and the courts that got that little gem of disaster pushed through. Kinda like the Patriot act.

a reply to: Gryphon66
Sorry to take that the wrong way. I'm a bit defensive about that accusation since there were lots of hippies who were quite patriotic, we're weren't all out there burning flags. We were protesting the warmongering policies of the government not trying to overthrow it---even though the press at the time did their best to convince people that we were anarchists. As there are today in every protest movement, there were infiltrators in every group who stirred up stuff but overall, we did not advocate the overthrow of the government. We were the liberal wing of the Democrat party fighting the leadership of the party. We saw them being bought out by the Military-Industrial Complex and expanding the FBI at an alarming rate. My father opined that LBJ was trying to institute a police state when he expanded the scope and size of the FBI in his War on Crime.
Back then we actually believed that the way to get things done was to work within the system so our ire was directed at the party leadership, not at the opposing party. Tolerance within the party existed back then. That disappeared in the early '90s. Realizing that working within the party wasn't getting anything accomplished, I left the party and became an independent. I've been a far more effective advocate for change since throwing off party affiliation.
Back to the topic---I disagree with the opinion that voters are stupid. Duped, perhaps, is a better word. I know some stupid people, some are family members----but none of them vote. They pay no attention whatsoever to politics unless the politicians appear at a sporting event or come to town for a campaign event and snarl up traffic. If I had confidence in the electronic voting machines I would say that these duped people elect our leadership. Sadly, I have no real confidence in electronic voting. Because of my suspicion of these machines, I worked very hard with a lot of folks to bring paper ballots back to our elections. If we are going to bring honesty and integrity back to government, it is going to be a long, hard journey but making sure that elections are honest is a small first step on that journey.

a reply to: jaxnmarko
The voters are the people that voted these politicians into office.
The filth that pass the laws like this.
So the voters, as a whole, are stupid, IMO.

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

you can call BS all you want..

he said it...at least 3 times..there's video of it.

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

you can call BS all you want..

he said it...at least 3 times..there's video of it.

Yes, I have seen the video. My point was, it's still BS. The electorate had nothing to do with Obamacare, so his comments were pretty damned ignorant. The stupidity of the American voter had nothing to do with it getting drafted or passed.

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

i think he's specifically referring to the lack of public backlash...people believed the hype, and lies, and false promises of the ACA....and they supported people who said they were for it...

a reply to: Daedalus

I don't believe backlash would have stopped the bill from going through, anyway. For that matter, if that is the standard he goes by, then pretty much every piece of crap legislation that has ever gotten passed is due to the stupidity of the American people, if who they elect and support is any indication. So this guy is pretty deluded if he thinks this is a first, or that he has somehow pulled off a big one. I still call him on the BS. He seems more like he's trying to take some sort of credit.

remember america elected reublicans to stop it but then they used a parlimentary procedure to pass it with 50 rather than the usual number required for this sort of thing. they even altered the bill and then declined to send it back to the other house for a relook as required. it was not the american electorate that was stupid. they were betrayed.

I'm not sure why I'm going to try this again ... but here goes.

Let's set our personal feelings about the ACA to the side for a moment and analyze what Dr. Gruber actually said and what is behind what he said.

The only mechanism by which the Federal Government can MAKE any citizen pay something or in this case buy something is the power of taxation.

The Government can set penalties to be paid for crimes, there can be fees associated with things you buy from the government (like getting a license from a state to drive) but if the government is going to "mandate" that a citizen pay something, it's a tax.

Mandate = Tax; Tax=Mandate

Dr. Gruber was saying that if you want to get a piece of legislation passed that actually has a "new tax" included, you can't call it that because the word "tax" particularly in 2010 was a lightning rod for voter negativity.

So you call it a mandate whether it's 1994 or 2010.

And let's be factual, he did not say "the American voters are stupid, so we can lie about this and pass it."

He said that in order to get legislation passed (with voter support) you have to be careful about how you phrase things.

For example, if you had called the USA PATRIOT act "a massive invasion of individual liberties" it would not have gotten the support it did by calling it the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act."

See what they did there? Unite, Strengthen, Tools, Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.

Dr. Gruber was blunt and direct, but all politicians depend on exactly what he was referring to.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Right, the Government can set penalties to be paid for crimes, there can be fees associated with things you buy from the government (like getting a license from a state to drive) but if the government is going to "mandate" that a citizen pay something, it's a tax.

When you get 'taxed' for not buying a commercial product, isn't that a penalty?

If you do what the government wishes, you don't have to pay the 'tax'.

Like a parent assessing a penalty on one of their children when the child goes against the wishes of the parent.

ETA: In previous discussions on the ACA, people brought up that it isn't any different than the government mandating that people purchase automobile insurance. Except with auto insurance, if you don't buy it, you are not allowed to drive the car on a public roadway.
How about if the government says that it is okay if you don't buy health insurance, but you are not allowed to visit a doctor or health care facility if you don't?

a reply to: butcherguy

The cost of the insurance is the tax. That's why there is a tax penalty (on your 1040 or whatever form) if you can't prove that you have insurance.

And you don't have to buy from the plans, you just have to buy.

Whether it's childish or not, this is how the individual mandate developed, as recommended by conservatives and Republicans who believed in line with conservative values that we can't just "give" people insurance (as in single payer) so you have to make the people pay (individual mandate).

The only way the government can make people pay when no crime has been committed (penalties or fines) or there can be a reasonable price for services (licenses or fees) is with a mandate, er, tax.

a reply to: Gryphon66

tax penalty

Is it a tax or a penalty?
As far as I know, a tax penalty is a penalty that you pay in addition to your taxes if you did not pay enough to begin with.
If it is a tax penalty as you say, then they are penalizing you for not 'paying a tax', which in this case would be not buying a commercial product(health insurance). So your entire health insurance bill is viewed as a tax?

a reply to: Gryphon66

And you don't have to buy from the plans, you just have to buy.

Yes, the government says that you have to buy health insurance.

The reason that we hear from the left is that health insurance is so important and everyone should have it.
What is next? Will there be a mandate that we must purchase food? Lack of food is a quicker killer than lack of health care.
Especially when you run the numbers and find out that more people die from medical mistakes than die because of lack of health insurance.

a reply to: butcherguy

It is not "as I say" it's what the law says, and the Supreme Court says, etc.

The tax is the cost of coverage, whether it's a private plan, through the exchanges, or via Medicaid expansion.

The penalty is applied if there is no proof of coverage, when you file your tax form.

And the DNA of the idea is conservative and Republican Butcherguy ... you keep failing to mention that.

Take the fairness or unfairness of the concept up with them.

a reply to: Gryphon66

It is not "as I say" it's what the law says, and the Supreme Court says, etc.

As I have said before, the law and the Supreme Court can and has been wrong before.

Are you good with the 'law of the land' that was upheld by the Dredd Scott Decision?

a reply to: Gryphon66

conservative and Republican Butcherguy

Do you see what you did there?
I am a Libertarian.
This law is anything BUT Libertarian.

Take the fairness or unfairness of the concept up with them.

The concept doesn't hurt me or anyone else. The concept doesn't affect my freedom.
The LAW does.... we do know who passed the law.